Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners. By means of present writ petition, petitioners challenged order dated 27.11.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bahraich in Rent Appeal No. 3 of 2007 under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
(2.) FACTS in brief are that the controversy in the present case relates to six shops which are situated in Mohalla Brahmanipura, Chowk Bazar, Bahraich, purchased by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 on 28.2.1990 from erstwhile owner Sardar Raj Jodhveer Singh, in which the petitioners are tenants. On 4/6.11.2000, landlord/respondents moved an application for release of six shops under the provisions of Section 21(1)(a)and 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Accordingly, the following cases registered before the Prescribed Authority/5th Upper Civil Judge, Bahraich. 1. Rent Control Case No. 5/2000 (Jyoti Kumar V. Abdul Basit). 2. Rent Control Case No. 6/2000 (Jyoti Kumar V. Shurur Ahmad). 3. Rent Control Case No. 7/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi v. Abdul Quadir). 4.Rent Control Case No. 8/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi v. Amanatullah). 5. Rent Control Case No. 9/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi v. Aziz Ahmad). 6. Rent Control Case No. 10/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi v. Kudubuddin). On 4.10.2002 a compromise entered between the parties in Rent Control Case No. 10/2000 in respect to shop No. 6, accordingly released in favour of the landlords, so, the controversy before the Prescribed Authority remains in respect to 5 shops under the tenancy of the petitioners. Before the Prescribed Authority, landlord moved an application under Section 34(1)(g) of Act read with Rule 22 of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, to consolidate the five cases i.e. Rent Control Case No. 5/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi v. Abdul Basti), Rent Control Case No. 6/2000 (Jyoti Kumar v. Shurur Ahmad), Rent Control Case No. 7/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi v. Abdul Quadir), Rent Control Case No. 8/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi v. Amanatullah), Rent Control Case No. 9/2000 (Jyoti Kumar Rastogi v. Aziz Ahmad). Accordingly, the said application registered as Paper No. Ka-17. On behalf of tenants, objection filed inter alia stating therein, that application moved by landlord to consolidate five cases is misconceived, rather the same is in contravention to the provisions as provided under Section 4(A) C.P.C. By order dated 20.2.2002, the Prescribed Authority allowed application(paper No. Ka-17) moved by the landlord to consolidate five cases.
(3.) NEEDLESS to mention herein that order passed by Prescribed Authority for consolidate the cases not challenged by the petitioners and by means of judgment and order dated 29.10.2010, Prescribed Authority/5th Upper Civil Judge, Bahraich allowed all the five release applications of landlord moved under Sections 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed Rent Appeal(registered as Rent Appeals Nos. 3 of 2007 to 7 of 2007) under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. During the pendency of the Rent Appeals before Appellate Authority, on behalf of petitioners an application moved on 11.3.2010(Annexure No. 7) praying therein that all appeals shall be delinked and heard separately to which objection filed on behalf of landlord-respondents on 16.9.2010 (Annexure No. 8).;