Any person affected by an order passed under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 has the right to file an appeal under Section 22, even if they were not a party to the proceedings.

( 1 ) THE dispute relates to premises No. 1 15/95, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur in which one late Arjun Lal was a tenant. Rajendra Kumar Nigam, the present petitioner who is landlord of the said premises, filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was registered as P. A. case No. 18 of 1996. The said release petition was allowed by the prescribed authority by order dated 11. 3. 1999. Late Arjun Lal or his legal heirs did not file any appeal under Section 22 of the Act and thus, the order of release dated 11. 3. 1999 became final.

( 2 ) THE landlord moved an application under Section 23 of the Act for implementation/execution of the order of release. In spite of the best efforts of the prescribed authority, the landlord could not be put in physical possession of the released accommodation oh account of the obstruction/resistance put in by one Braj Behari Misra-- (now respondent No. 3 ). It is maintained that Braj Behari Misra--respondent No. 3 was backed by one Sri Bhoodhar Misra, a member of the Legislative Assembly from Kanpur and, therefore, the police help was also not made available to translate the release order into action.

( 3 ) BRAJ Behari Misra--respondent No. 3 moved an application on 15. 5. 2000 before the prescribed authority to recall the order dated 11. 3. 1999. The application was rejected by the Prescribed authority on 16. 5. 2000 with the observation that he was an unauthorised occupant. Thereafter. Braj Behari Misra-respondent No. 3 filed Rent Appeal No. 47 of 2000 under Section 22 of the act asserting himself to be the tenant of the released accommodation. This appeal has been admitted by learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 23. 5. 2000 and the operation of the original order of release dated 11. 3. 1999 has been stayed. It is In these circumstances that the landlord has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india to quash the order of the District Judge admitting the appeal and staying the order of release on the ground that an appeal at the instance of an unauthorised occupant against whom any order of release has been passed is not maintainable under Section 22 of the Act.

( 4 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. Heard Sri N. B. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S. M. Dayal, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

( 5 ) THE moot point for consideration and determination in the present writ petition is that : whether Braj Behari Misra-respondent No. 3 who was not a party to the release petition and against whom the order of release is being enforced is entitled to maintain the appeal under section 22 of the Act or not. Sri N. B. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the respondent No. 3 has been adjudged as an unauthorised occupant in proceedings under section 23 of the Act and since the order passed under Section 23 is not subject to appeal under section 22 of the Act. the appeal before learned District Judge is incompetent and, therefore, the interim order of stay passed by him in an appeal, which is not maintainable is vitiated. Sri Dayal has repelled the above submission and urged that an appeal under Section 22 may be filed by a person who is aggrieved-by an order passed under Section 21 of the Act.

( 6 ) SECTION 22 of the Act. which requires Interpretation, runs as follows :

"any person aggrieved by an order under Section 21 or Section 24 may, within 30 days from the date of order, prefer an appeal against it to the District Judge, and in other respects, the provisions of Section 10 shall mutatis mutandis apply In relation to such appeal. "

( 7 ) BRAJ Behari Misra-respondent No. 3 claims himself to be the tenant of the accommodation, in respect of which an order of release has been passed and it is alleged that his possess