Girish Prasad Mathur, J. - (1.) THE parties have exchanged affidavits and therefore, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. A release application was filed by the petitioner landlord Kali Charan for release of the premises in occupation of the tenant Narendra Singh Yadav Respondent No. 2. It appears that some civil and criminal litigation is also pending between the parties. The tenant moved an application praying that till the final decision of Civil and Criminal Cases, hearing of the release application may be stayed. The Prescribed Authority by impugned order dated 1 -12 -1980 stayed the proceedings of P.A. case No. 56 of 1984 till the decision of the competent court regarding the extent of accommodation under tenancy of Respondent No. 2. Aggrieved, the landlord has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) THE release application has been filed in the year 1984 and according to the case of landlord, tenant has under his occupation two rooms and a kitchen. The case of the tenant, on the other hand, is that he has five rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom and open court -yard under his tenancy. The impugned order shows that a criminal complaint under Section 448 I.P.C. was filed by the landlord against the tenant in which the latter was convicted on 7 -4 -1989 by the learned Magistrate and his appeal was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge and thereafter, he has filed Criminal Revision in High Court in which a stay order has been passed staying realisation of fine. That apart, some close relative of the landlord has filed Civil Suit No. 820 of 1984 in the Court of Munsif, Agra on the ground that the tenant is in occupation of three rooms. The tenant has also filed original Suit No. 673/84 in the Court of Munsif, Agra regarding the premises under his tenancy which was dismissed by the learned Munsif on 3 -5 -1990 and an appeal against the said decree is pending. The Prescribed Authority stayed the proceedings of release application on the ground of pendency of the aforesaid litigation. In my opinion, the impugned order of the Prescribed Authority is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained in law. If the parties are at issue as to the extent of accommodation which is under tenancy of Respondent No. 2, the said question has to be decided by the Prescribed Authority on the basis of evidence adduced before him. It is fully within the competence of the Prescribed Authority to decide the aforesaid question. He cannot shirk his responsibility and await decision of civil suit.
(3.) SO far as Criminal case is concerned, it is well settled that judgment given by a Criminal Court is admissible only for limited purpose namely that a particular person was prosecuted in a Criminal case and as to whether he was convicted or acquitted. The findings recorded by Criminal Court regarding the property over which the accused has trespassed where he is prosecuted under Section 448 I.P.C., is not admissible in any other suit or proceeding. Shri Mandhyan has made statement that in so far as suit No. 673 of 1984 filed by the tenant is concerned, the same is for injunction restraining the landlord from evicting him. Other suit No. 820/84 has been filed with regard to some other portion of the building which is not under tenancy of respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has not challenged the aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the petitioner In my opinion, the pendency of aforesaid litigation cannot be a ground for staying the proceedings of the release application. The Prescribed Authority shall decide the extent of the accommodation which is under the tenancy of respondent No. 2 on the basis of evidence adduced before him and decide the release application on merits. The writ petition is, accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 1 -12 -1990 of the Prescribed Authority is quashed. He is directed to decide the release application filed by the landlord in accordance with law. Since the release application was filed in 1984 and more than 8 years have elapsed, the Prescribed Authority is directed to proceed expeditiously and try to conclude the proceedings within six months of the presentation of a certified copy of the order before him. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.;