J.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard petitioner's counsel.
(2.) This is tenant petition against the order of the Prescribed Authority rejecting petitioner's application for deciding the question whether there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, as a preliminary issue before proceeding further in the matter. The application has been rejected by the learned Prescribed Authority on the ground that there is a prima facie material to Indicate such a relationship and further on the ground that no trust deed has been produced from the side of the tenant. The Prescribed Authority was also of the opinion that the petitioner's application was moved only with a view to delay the proceedings.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that an application under Section 21 is maintainable only at the instance of the landlord and no other person and where the tenant raises a question before the Prescribed Authority that the person who has moved release application is not his landlord, he is duty bound to decide the said question and in support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Nath Mishra V. Prescribed Authority, 1984 (2) ARC 227. There can be no dispute with regard to this position of law. However, the question that requires consideration is as to whether the Prescribed Authority is also duty bound to decide the said question as a preliminary issue?;