S.D.Agarwala, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The premises in dispute is a shop No. 954, P. L. Sharma Road, Begam Bagh, Meerut. The tenant is carrying on the business of sale of fire-arms in the said accommodation.
(2.) The petitioner is the tenant. Ashok Kumar Gupta respondent No. 3 is the owner and landlord of the premises and respondent No. 4, S. C. Gupta is the father of Ashok Kumar Gupta. The petitioner tenant made an application under Section 3-A of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the old Act. This application was decided on 11th August, 1971. Thereafter an application for review was made by respondent No. 3 on 18th February, 1972. This application was dismissed on 19th March, 1976 by the District Supply Officer/Delegated Authority Meerut on 19th March, 1976. Respondent No. 3 filed an appeal before the District Judge, Meerut. This appeal was decided by the IV Additional District Judge, Meerut on 19th December, 1978. The order dated 19th March, 1976 was set aside and the case was remanded to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for deciding the application under Section 3-A of the old Act afresh in accordance with law'. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19th December, 1978 by means of the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions. His first contention is that the application for review was not maintainable in law' and his second contention is that in any case no appeal lies against the order dated 19th March, 1976 and as such the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondent in reply has contested the above two contentions and has further submitted that since there is material suppression of facts by the petitioner and the petitioner had submitted to the remand order dated ,19th March, 1976 as well as since the petitioner is guilty of laches it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not necessary for me to get into the contentions raised by the respondents counsel as I am of the view that an application for review was maintainable as well as an appeal lay against the order dated 19th March, 1976.;