Anshuman Singh, J. - (1.) Before this writ petition was admitted, the petitioner was directed to serve the respondents personally who have been served. Counter and Rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. As provided in the second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XII of the Rules of Court and also with the consent of the parties, it is desirable that the writ petition should be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner, who is the landlord of the accommodation in dispute filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against respondent No. 2 Jagdish Son of Gulab Chandra. The said application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated October 26, 1984. It has been averred in the writ petition that since respondent No. 2 did not vacate the premises in dispute after passing of the release order by the Prescribed Authority, the landlord moved an application under Section 23 of the Act before the Prescribed Authority for police help in order to get the order passed under Section 21 of the Act executed and the respondent evicted. Smt. Meet a Devi, respondent No. 3, filed an application before the Prescribed Authority resisting the claim of the landlord under Section 23 inter alia on the ground that she has been living in the accommodation in dispute as a tenant with the consent of the landlord She further alleged that as she was not a party to the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act the order was not binding on her and she was not liable to be evicted in proceedings under Section 23 of the Act. The landlord denied the fact [of tenancy and alleged that she was inducted in the accommodation in dispute at the instance of respondent No. 2 against whom an order of release under Section 21 was obtained by the landlord. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties by Order dated July 8, 1986 rejected the application of Smt. Meera Devi, respondent No. 3, for impleadment and also rejected the application filed by the petitioner landlord for police help under Section 23 of the Act. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) It appears that after the impugned order dated July 8, 1987 was passed by the Prescribed Authority an application for allotment as envisaged in Rule 10 of the Rules framed under the Act was filed by Smt. Meera Devi before the Rent Control and Eviction;Officer who by order dated July 13, 1987 allotted the accommodation in dispute in her favour. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order of allotment passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in the instant writ petition. An amendment application in the present writ petition has also been filed.;