Sunita Agarwal, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is seeking mandamus issuing direction to the appellate authority to decide the Rent Appeal no. 3 of 2013 filed by the respondent No. 2. The release application under section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. There was no dispute before the Prescribed Authority regarding landlord tenant relationship between the parties.
(3.) From the order sheet learned counsel for the petitioner demonstrates that in appeal arguments were heard on 20.8.2014 and 30.8.2014 was fixed for judgment/final orders. On 30.8.2014 a third party Smt. Siddiqui Begum filed an application 19-C for amendment claiming ownership. On this application, counsel for the applicant sought time for objection. Thereafter several dates were fixed but the application 19-C has not been disposed of till date. Surprisingly enough the court below had passed an order on 22.11.2014 for issuing notice to one Mohmmad Raheem. From the perusal of the record it appears that non applicant Mohammad Raheem has been directed to appear and bailable warrant was issued on 10.3.2015 for ensuring his appearance on 4.4.2015. Since 4.4.2015 there is nothing on the order-sheet as to whether Mohammad Raheem had appeared or not. However Smt. Siddiqui Begaum had filed her objection paper no. 35 on 20.5.2015.;