JUDGMENT S.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the District Judge, Moradabad, to transfer the Rent Control Appeal No. 32 of 1999, Hans Raj v. Krishna Avatar from the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Moradabad to the District Judge, Moradabad or any other Presiding Officer.
2. From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 in respect of the disputed accommodation specified in detail at the foot of the release application (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The said release application was allowed by the prescribed authority vide its order dated 22.9.1999 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition).
3. Thereafter, it appears that the respondents filed an appeal under Section 22 of U. P Act No. XIII of 1972. The said appeal was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 32 of 1999.
4. The said Rent Control Appeal No. 32 of 1999 is pending before the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Moradabad.
5. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for issuance of mandamus directing the District Judge, Moradabad, to transfer the said Rent Control Appeal No. 32 of 1999 from the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Moradabad to the District Judge, Moradabad or any other Presiding Officer.
6. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri S.N. Mishra, for the petitioner.
7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel, Rajesh Tandon, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner.
8. Section 10 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 lays down as follows :
Appeal against order under Sections 8, 9 and 9A.--"(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the District Magistrate under Section 8 or Section 9 (or Section 9A) may, within thirty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal against it to the District Judge, and the District Judge may either dispose of it himself or assign it for disposal to any Additional District Judge under his administrative control, and may recall it from such officer, or transfer it to any other such officer.
(2) The appellate authority may confirm, vary or rescind the order, or remand the case to the District Magistrate for rehearing and may also take any additional evidence, and, pending its decision, stay the operation of the order under appeal on such terms, if any, as it thinks fit.
(3) No further appeal or revision shall lie against such order passed by the appellate authority under this section and its order shall be final."
Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 lays down as follows :
"Appeal. -- Any person aggrieved by an order under Section 21 or Section 24 may within thirty days from the date of the order prefer an appeal against it to the District Judge, and, in other respects, the provisions of Section 10 shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to such appeal."
9. From the reading of Section 10 and Section 22 of the said Act, it is evident that provisions of Section 10 have been made applicable to the appeal filed under Section 22 of the said Act. Section 10 (1) of the said Act provides that the appeal which is filed before the District Judge, may be disposed of either by the District Judge himself or may be assigned by him for disposal to any Additional District Judge under his administrative control. Section 10 (1) of the said Act further provides that the appeal may be recalled by the District Judge from any such officer (i.e., Additional District Judge), or the appeal may be transferred to any other such officer.
10. As noted above. Section 10 of the said Act has been made applicable to the appeal filed under Section 22 of the said Act. Therefore, the District Judge may exercise the powers given to him under Section 10 (1) of the said Act in respect of an appeal filed under Section 22 of the said Act also.
11. In view of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of filing an application before the District Judge, Moradabad, seeking transfer of the said Rent Control Appeal No. 32 of 1999.
12. In the circumstances, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the District Judge, Moradabad, by filing application for transferring the said Rent Control Appeal No. 32 of 1999.
13. It is, however, made clear that I have not adjudicated on the merits of the grounds raised by the petitioner for transfer of the said rent appeal. Therefore, in case, the petitioner files an application before the District Judge, Moradabad for the transfer of the said Rent Control Appeal No. 32 of 1999, the District Judge, Moradabad, will dispose of the same uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this judgment on the merits of the case.