- (1.) O. P. Garg, J. The dispute in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India pertains to the premises No. 5- B/2, Sudama Building, Budh Bazar, Moradabad. The respondent No. 3- T. D. Kaushik was admittedly the tenant of the said accommodation. He moved an ap plication under Section 2 (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 to the District Magistrate/rent Control and Eviction Of ficer, Moradabad for permission to get a portion of tenanted accommodation on licence for a limited period of two months. This application was rejected. The petitioner again moved an application for release of the accommodation under the provisions of Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. After taking into consideration the report dated 23-4-1992 the vacancy of the dis puted accommodation was notified on the same day and a part of the accommodation was allotted in favour of respondent No. 2-Radhey Shyam Jain. The petitioner filed an objection against the order of vacancy and also challenged the order of allotment. The objection was rejected. Against the orders the petitioner has preferred a revision application under Section 18 of the Act before the District Judge, Moradabad. The said revision application is still pending.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri. B. C. Rai for the petitioner as well as Sri Pramod Jain appearing on behalf of allottee respondent No. 2. Sri Pramod Jain took the prelimi nary objection that the present writ peti tion is not maintainable as the petitioner cannot be permitted to take recourse to two parallel proceedings- one he has filed a revision application under Section 18 of the Act and other in the form of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India. This submission of Sri Pramod Jain is well merited.
(3.) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taken into con sideration the above fact, I find that the present writ petition is pre-mature. The petitioner is, of necessity, to prosecute the revision application which is still pending. Instead of dismissing this writ peti tion, I feel that it would be proper if it is disposed of lest it may prejudice the rights of either of the parties with the direction that the revisional Court shall decide the pending revision application under Sec tion 18 of the Act with all expedition preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him after hearing all the affected parties and taking into con sideration the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Ravindra Pratap Singh v. VIII Additional District Judge, Varanasi 1997 (1) JCLR 627 (All); 1997 All. L. J. 868 , Dhani Chandra Khanna v. Incharge District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, 2001 (1) JCLR 43 (All); 2000 (2) A. P. . C. 583 and the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Achal Misra v. Ram Shankar Singh, 2001 (1) JCLR 301 (SC); 2000 (2) A. P. . C. 446.;