MAHENDRA DAYAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by means of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 24.04.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2, Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby his application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. was rejected and the judgment and the order dated 13.08.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the revision filed against the order passed by the learned Lower Court was dismissed.
(2.) SINCE the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage.
(3.) THE brief facts relevant for disposal of this case are that the opposite parties no.3 to 6 being owner and landlord of the shops in question filed an application for release on 25.01.2008 before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri. A joint release application was filed by the opposite parties no.3 to 6 for release of three shops against the tenants, namely, Kishan Lal, Devendra Pal Singh and Dr. Vijai Prakash. One of the tenants, namely, Dr. Vijai Prakash filed his written statement on 09.07.2008 stating therein that his uncle Dr. Saryu Prasad Varma (Petitioner) is the tenant of the shop in question and Dr. Vijai Prakash has never been tenant of the said shop. The opposite parties no.3 to 6 then applied for impleadment of the petitioner which was allowed and the petitioner was impleaded as one of the opposite parties in the release case. The petitioner submitted his written statement on 19.09.2009 admitting himself to be the tenant of one of the shops in question for the last about 30 years. The tenant of the other two shops, namely, Kishan Lal and Devendra Pal Singh entered into compromise with the opposite parties no.3 to 6 and vacated their shops. After the evidence of the parties and submission of written arguments by both the parties, the opposite parties no.3 to 6 again applied for amendment of their release application and by way of third amendment the name of Dr. Vijai Prakash was deleted. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed on the third amendment application, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.37 of 2014 before this Hon'ble Court which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 12.03.2014. This Hon'ble Court while disposing of the writ petition provided that in case the Prescribed Authority decides the case against the petitioner and occasion arises to challenge the same, it would be upon for him to press all the grounds that have been taken in the writ petition assailing the order impugned. The petitioner, in the meantime, moved an application on 17.05.2012 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the release application on the ground that the opposite parties no.3 to 6 tried to forcibly evict the petitioner and take forceful possession of the shop in question, therefore, the petitioner filed a Regular Suit No.407 of 2003 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri and the petitioner also started depositing the rent in the said court under Section 30 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and as such the petitioner is not a defaulter. It was further alleged in the said application that knowing the entire facts the opposite parties no.3 to 6 did not implead the petitioner as party in the application for release initially, but when Dr. Vijai Prakash appeared and stated that he was not the tenant of any shop, the opposite party no.3 to 6 filed an application for impleadment and impleaded the petitioner as opposite party. The petitioner also took a ground in the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. that the opposite parties no.3 to 6 have not served the statutory notice upon him as required? under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and as such the release application was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected on this score.The petitioner also took a ground that a single release application in respect of three different tenants was not maintainable. This application was rejected by the opposite party no.2 by means of the impugned order dated 24.04.2013. The main ground for rejection of application was that under Section 34 of the Act only some of the provisions of the Court of Civil Procedure have been made applicable to the proceedings under the Rent Control Act. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. has not been made applicable to any of the proceedings under the Rent Control Act. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge Lakhimpur Kheri which was heard and dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, by the judgment and order dated 13.08.2014 on the ground that a revision against the aforesaid order was not maintainable.;