R.K. Gulati, J. - (1.) THE petition is filed by the tenant -petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is directed against an order dated 30th of May, 1989 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Allahabad, 1st respondent. By the impugned order the petitioner's application 40 -C containing two prayers was rejected. By the first prayer the petitioners required that the respondent -landlord be directed to produce stock register, purchase and sale register and the labour register of Namkeen business. The second prayer related to issuing a commission to report as to the details of the business and business accommodation of the respondent -landlord. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am not satisfied that this case requires an interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE first relief in the application of the petitioners was rejected on the finding that the perusal of stock register etc. is not necessary to assess the need of the landlord, or the question of comparative hardship of the parties, inasmuch as they have led evidence on these issues. Further the landlord -respondent has denied the maintenance of registers and hence the same cannot be summoned or called for. So far as the second prayer was concerned, it was rejected on the ground that there was already Commissioners report on the record of the Prescribed Authority which was obtained in wayback 1984 furnishing all details now sought for and no useful purpose would be served by obtaining another report. The grounds on which the application 40 -C was rejected, in my opinion, are not irrelevant so as to call for an interference by this Court at this stage of proceedings. In any case, the order impugned is only an interlocutory order and it is open to question at the instance of the petitioners after the final order is passed disposing of the appeal, provided the petitioners still feel aggrieved.
(3.) THERE is yet another ground which impels me to reject the petition at this stage of proceedings. I was informed at the Bar by the learned Counsel for the parties that hearing of the appeal has already taken place and the case was fixed for delivery of judgment on 22nd of May, 1990. The judgment could not be delivered by the Appellate authority because of the stay order passed by this Court on 22 -5 -1990 restraining the Appellate Authority from delivering its judgment till 26th of May, 1990, which date was extended by a subsequent order upto the end of July, 1990. In this background and in particular, when the matter has already been reserved for delivery of judgment, I do not consider it appropriate to grant the relief prayed for in this petition. As already observed, if the petitioners feel aggrieved after the final orders have been passed, they may take recourse to such legal proceedings as may be available to them under the law.;