Gopalji Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution on behalf of the tenant of bungalow No. 23, Muir Road, Allahabad for the following reliefs: (a) a writ of certiorari directing opposite party No. 2 to submit the record of suit No. 72 of 1953 to this Court and for quashing the decree passed by the Civil Judge on 30 -4 -1957. (b) a writ of certiorari to opposite party No. 3 directing him to bring up his order dated 28 -5 -1957 and the entire proceedings in Misc. case No. 124 of 1957 Smt. Chandra Kala Devi v. Lakskmi Kant Modwell for being quashed; and (c) a writ of prohibition to opposite party No. 3, Munsif, West, Allahabad restraining him from proceeding with the Misc. Case No. 424 of 1957.
(2.) THE facts briefly are: Opposite Party No. 1 is the owner of bungalow No. 23, Muir Road, Allahabad. The Petitioner took this bungalow on rent and occupied if from 1 -1 -1952. It is not necessary for me to give the actual amount of rent which was agreed between the parties because there was some dispute as regards the rent. A trouble arose as regards the actual amount of rent which was agreed and an application was filed by opposite party No. 1, the landlady, Under Section 7(B) for recovery of arrears of rent on the ground that the rent was agreed at Rs. 100/ - per month. That petition was rejected. Thereafter in the year 1953 a suit was brought under Section 5 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act for fixation of rent. The suit was numbered as suit No. 72 of 1956. It was finally disposed of by the Civil Judge by his order dated 30 -4 -1957 in which he came to the conclusion that the annual rent of the accommodation in possession of the Petitioner should be fixed at Rs. 745/ -. The Petitioner had been claiming that the reasonable rent would be Rs. 400/ - per annum. During the pendency of suit No. 72 of 1953 the opposite party, landlady, filed an application under Section 7(B) of the Rent Control and Eviction Act for the recovery of arrears of rent from 1 -1 -1952 upto the date of the application at the rate of Rs. 400/ - annually. In the application it was stated that the tenant had agreed that the reasonable rent would be Rs. 400/ -annually and on that basis the application was made although that was not the final claim of the landlady inasmuch as a suit for fixation of rent was pending and it had not been decided till then. After the decision of the Suit under Section 5 on 30 -4 -1957 another application was made in May 1957 for the recovery of the arrears that was calculated on the basis of the rent which was fixed by the learned Civil Judge, i.e., at Rs. 745/ -annually. Out of the amount due on that basis Rs. 1600/ - which has been claimed under the earlier petition were deducted and by means of this application it was claimed that the tenant was in arrears of rent to the extent of rupees two thousand and odd. Notice was issued to the tenant and it was served on the Petitioner on 12 -5 -1957. There after he made an application to the Munsif for a direction that he should be permitted to file the personal bond of Sri Rama Kant as security. On that application the Munsif passed an order that Sri Ramakant should appear on 27 -5 -1957 and might furnish the personal bond. Sri Ramakant is Petitioner's father. On 27 -5 -1957, however, an application was filed by the opposite party land lady pointing out to the Munsif that the Petitioner had attempted to file the personal bond of his father in the earlier proceedings but that was rejected by the Munsif. Consequently the Munsif should not have permitted the Petitioner to file the personal bond of his father as the security for the amount of the arrears of rent. There were certain objections which were taken by the Petitioner to that application but on 28 -5 -1957 the Munsif gave time to the Petitioner upto 11 -7 -1957 to deposit the amount in suit in cash or furnish the security of a person who was the resident of Allahabad. The present petition then Was filed in this Court on 8 -7 -1957 for the reliefs which I have already mentioned above. As regards the first relief claimed by the Petitioner it was strongly contended by the counsel for the Petitioner that the order was without jurisdiction and it should be quashed by this Court. Two main grounds were urged by the counsel in support of this contention. Firstly, it was urged by him that certain relevant considerations which were required to be taken into account by the court in fixing the rent under Section 6 of the UP Rent Control and Eviction Act were not considered by the learned Civil Judge and secondly it was urged that certain considerations which were extraneous to the provisions of Section 6 were taken into consideration by the Civil Judge in fixing the rent. The first answer to this relief claimed by the Petitioner is that he has already sought an alternative remedy by filing a revision in this Court challenging the validity of that order and in these circumstances it is not open to the Petitioner to come to this Court in the writ petition and therefore he is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The order of the learned Civil Judge dated 30 -4 -1957 therefore stands.
(3.) ANOTHER objection has been taken by the opposite party to. the grant of this relief on the ground that it was not open to the Petitioner to have joined in one petition two reliefs -one challenging the order of the 30 -4 -1957 and the other challenging the order of the Munsif passed in the proceedings under Section 7(B) on 28 -5 -1957. As I have already indicated I am not inclined to give relief to the Petitioner quashing the order of 30 -4 -1957 on the ground that he has already filed a revision in this Court against that order, it is therefore not necessary for me to decide whether he could have joined these two reliefs in this petition or not. It is also not necessary for me to give decision on the points raised by the Petitioner on the merits of the order dated 30 -4 -1957.;