O.P.Jain, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B.D. Madhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Office has reported that there is a delay of 156 days in filing the writ petition. The only explanation given by the petitioner is that there was some strike going on at Agra judgeship. This reason is not satisfactory because there was no strike at Allahabad.
(2.) IT is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the premises have been let out to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 2000/ - p.m. which was later on increased to Rs. 2,200/ - p.m. on the basis of Ordinance of 1994 which was substituted by amending Act 5 of 1995. It is argued that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to any premises of which the monthly rent exceeds Rs. 2000/ - p.m. A perusal of the record Shows that prima facie the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant and he was inducted by the landlord without any allotment order. It also appears from the record that against the impugned order dated 31st Oct., 1994 a revision has already been filed by the landlord in the court of District Judge and the present petitioner has filed an impleadment application in the revision. Therefore, this question can also be decided by the revisional court. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of finally.;