- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the petitioners.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26-9-1993 whereby the application filed by respondent No. 3 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (UP. Act No. XIII of 1972) (for short the Act), was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 16-1-1998 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the aforesaid order dated 25-9-1993 was dismissed by the Courts below. Prayer for quashing the execution proceedings initiated by respondent No. 3 has also been made. It appears that respondent No. 3 filed an application for release of the shop in dispute under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. The said application was objected to and opposed by the petitioners. Ultimate ly the same was allowed by judgment and order dated 25-9-1993. Appeal filed by the petitioners against the same was also dis missed by the Appellate Authority by judgment and order dated 16-1-1998. It has been stated that after the appeal was dis missed there was a compromise between the parties on the basis of which the petitioners have been paying rent to the landlord-respondent No. 3, therefore, there was no justification for the said respondent to initiate execution proceed ings. Reliance is being placed upon photo stat copies of the receipts which have been filed as Annexures 3 and 4 to this petition. It is alleged that it was agreed between the parties that the respondent No. 3 shall not execute the release order. Admittedly execution proceedings have been initiated by respondent No. 3 on the basis of the impugned orders dated 25-9-1993 and 16-1-1998 on 30-7-2000, If the petitioners were right in their conten tion and there was actually an agreement between the parties not to execute the impugned order, the petitioners should have approached the Prescribed Authority and should have filed objection to the ef fect that the dispute has been resolved between the parties outside Court on the basis of which after the impugned orders were passed, petitioners have been paying rent of the building in question to the decree-holder-respondent No. 3, there fore, the execution application was liable to be dismissed. No such objection till date has been filed, the petitioners straightaway approached this Court and filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. IP the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no fresh evidence can be filed and no new plea of fact can be taken. This Court in exercise of powers under the aforesaid Ar ticle cannot go into the controversy of validity and genuineness of the alleged rent receipts filed by the petitioners as Annexures 3 and 4 to this petition and cannot decide the question as to whether there was an agreement between the par ties not to execute the release order or that the rent was paid by the petitioners to the landlord. All the points which are being" said before this Court can be raised before the Prescribed Authority. The petitioners may also apply for grant of interim relief. If the objections is filed and application for interim relief is made, the Prescribed Authority shall decide the matter expeditiously and pass appropriate order for interim relief before proceeding further in the execution case.
(3.) WITH these observations and direc tions, this petition stands finally disposed of. A copy of this order may be issued to learned Counsel for the petitioners within three days on payment of usual charges. Petition disposed of. .;