R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 27.11.1997 whereby the release application filed by the respondent No. 3 was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 25.08.2000 whereby the impleadment application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Prayer for staying the proceedings of Execution Case No. 4/23/2000, Smt. Parvati Tandon v. Sheetal Prasad and others, has also been made. It appears that the respondent No. 3 filed an application for release of the building in question. It was stated that she had purchased the said building from Smt. Ratan Devi who was one of the co -owners of the building in dispute. An application was filed for release on the ground of her personal need and occupation. The release application was contested and opposed by Sheetal Prasad Kesarwani, the sitting tenant. It was asserted that the need of the applicant was neither genuine nor bona fide. The pleas of comparative hardship were also taken. In support of their cases parties produced evidence, oral and documentary. It was on the basis of the said evidence, the Prescribed Authority recorded findings on the relevant questions involved in the case in favour of respondent No. 6 and allowed the application by judgment and order dated 29.11.1997. Challenging the validity of the said order, the tenant Shri Sheetal Prasad Kesarwani filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority were affirmed by its judgment and order dated 17.02.2000. Thereafter the matter was brought before this Court in Writ Petition No. 26081 of 2000, Sheetal Prasad Kesarwani v. XVIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others. The said writ petition was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 25.05.2000. Thereafter the respondents No. 2 and 4 made an application for execution of the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority, which was registered as Execution Case No. 4/23/2000. Thereafter the petitioner filed an impleadment application in the execution case pleading that she was one of the co -owners of the property in question and the order for release was obtained behind her back, which was illegal. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the impleadment application by judgment and order dated 25.08.2000. Hence, the present petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the release order was obtained behind the back of the petitioner, therefore, it was necessary for the Prescribed Authority to implead the petitioner in the execution proceedings as orders could not be passed behind her back. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supported the validity of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under challenge. It was asserted that the petitioner was neither necessary nor proper party in the proceedings. The judgments and orders passed in the proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act have become final, the same were therefore, liable to be executed against the tenant Shri Sheetal Prasad Kesarwani. It was also urged that if the petitioner has got any grievance, she can seek remedy before the appropriate authority or the Court. It was stated that the petitioner has already filed a suit for declaration of her rights and for permanent injunction. In the said suit, temporary injunction order has already been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the whole proceedings were in complete contravention of the orders passed by the Civil Court. The petitioner was a necessary party, therefore, the impugned orders were liable to be set aside. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
(3.) IN case, petitioner feels that the order passed by the Civil Court is not being obeyed by respondents or anyone of them, she is at liberty to approach the Civil Court and file an application under Order 39 Rule 2A C.P.C. for ventilation of her grievances, if any. As the petitioner has already availed of the alternative remedy, in my opinion, the authorities below did not commit any error in dismissing the impleadment application. No case either for quashing the impugned orders or for staying the execution proceedings is made out. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It may also be noted that learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the aforesaid suit was already dismissed for default on 25.8.1999. He has also produced a photostat copy of the certified copy of the said order. The petitioner could make an application for restoration of the said suit but nothing has been stated in the writ petition about this aspect of the matter. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.;