Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Mohd Arif Khan learned senior Advocate assisted by Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kabir Ahmand and Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.1.2011 passed by opposite party No. 1, Prescribed Authority/ Small Causes Court, Lucknow.

3. Controversy involved in the present case relates to shop No. 64 situated on the ground floor of building No. 31/72, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Police-station-Hazratganj, Lucknow which is bounded as under :

East : Shop in occupation of N.L. Roay Watch Company

West : Shop in occupation of M/s Mangal Prasad & sons

North : Lane

South: Footpath and thereafter Mahatma Gandi Marg, Hazratganj,Lucknow

4. On 20.3.2008 Sri Mohammad Asif Naseer/ opposite party No. 2 the landlord /owner of shop No. 64 moved an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Building Regulations of Letting (Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred as an ‘Act’) for release in which petitioner is a tenant at monthly rent of Rs. 15 registered as P.A. Case No. 10 of 2008, on 19.7.2010 an objection/ written statement filed by petitioner.

5. On 22.11.2010 the petitioner/ tenant moved an application under Section 34 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 read with Rule 22 (e) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent & Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as a ‘Rules’) that P.A. Case No. 10 of 2008 (Mohd. Asif Naseer v. West Watch Company) and P.A. Case No. 08 of 2008 (Mohd. Asif Naseer v. M/s Mangal Prasad and Sons) may be consolidated and heard together as both the shops situate at the same building.

6. The Prescribed Authority/ Small Causes Court, Lucknow by means of impugned order dated 13.1.2011 (Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) rejected the said application, hence the present writ petition has been filed.

7. Sri M.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that release application moved for release of shop No. 64 situate in same building almost on the same facts and circumstances involved in other release application moved by the same landlord in respect to shop No. 63 situate on the ground floor of the same building under the tenancy of M/s Mangal Das and Sons, except deletion of two paragraphs in the instant release matter. In order to support the said averments he relied on paragraph No. 11 to the release application moved by respondent/ landlord in the instant case quoted herein above :

“11. That it will not be out of place to mention here that the applicant has already moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 dated 10.3.2008 before this Hon’ble Court in respect of shop No. 63 situated on the ground floor of building No. 31/ 72, Mahatma Gandi Marg, P.S. Hazratganj, Lucknow which is in the tenancy of M/s Mangal Prasad & Sons. On the said application of the applicant dated 10.3.2008, a P.A. Case No. 8/2008- Mohd. Asif Naseer v. M/S Mangal Prasad & Sons, was registered and the aforesaid P.A. Case No. 8 of 2008 is fixed for 21.4.2008.”

8. Sri M.A. Khan learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the cases are at the hearing stage, keeping in view the facts both matters be clubbed together, decided simultaneously as the same will facilitate the opposite party No. 1 to come to just conclusion, also safe the precious time of the Court. Both the cases are ripe for hearing. P.A. case No. 10/08 has been fixed for hearing on 21.1.2011 while P.A. Case No. 08/08 has been fixed for 28.1.2011. The opposite party No. 1 even without going through the averments made in both the release applications illegally rejected and application paper No. C-51 for consolidating both the P.A. Cases by incorrectly observing that the grounds of release are different, thereby the order passed is vitiated in law.

9. He fuhrer submits that by virtue of Section 34 of the Act read with Rule 22 (e) of the