Mam Chandra Agarwal, J. - (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges an order dated 16th December, 1996 passed by the Prescribed Authority, namely the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in P.A. Case No. 46 of 1994. These are proceedings instituted by the respondent No. 3 claiming to be owner of the landlord of house No. 542, Netanagar, Nai Basti, Kydganj, Allahabad and for the release of the accommodation in his favour under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The present petitioner is admittedly occupying a portion of the said house as a tenant. The petitioner filed suit No. 20 of 1988 claiming that the said house vested in a trust and sought the relief of declaration that the said house is trust property and for removing the defendants from the office of the trust. The said suit has been dismissed on the preliminary ground that the same did not lie under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. First appeal has been filed and is pending in this Court. In the proceedings for the release of the house the present petitioner who is a tenant in the house moved application that the proceedings be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure till the disposal of the said suit. The said application has been dismissed by the impugned order inter alia on the ground that by an order in a writ petition this Court directed the authority concerned to decide the release application within a period of four months. The order of this Court is dated 22.8.1996 and copy thereof was placed before me by Sri S.N. Verma, Senior Advocate who appeared for the respondents.
(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the question whether the tenanted accommodation vests in a trust is involved in the aforesaid suit a proceeding for release should be stayed. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have been taken through the documents annexed with the writ petition. Admittedly, in writ petition No. 27195 of 1996 filed by respondent No. 2 in which the present petitioner was respondent No. 3 this Court by order dated 22.8.1996 has directed that the said release application being P.A. Case No. 46 of 1994 be decided within a period of four months. The order stands and the petitioner being a party thereto is bound by the directions contained therein. Therefore, in the face of that order, it would not be proper for the Court below or even for this Court to stay the proceedings for release. Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to proceedings for release and in any case the petitioner's suit having been dismissed and the petitioner having full chance of having his say in the proceedings for the release, there is no justification for staying the proceedings for release and no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed in limine with costs to respondents that I assess at Rs. 1000/ -.;