The court emphasized the importance of pursuing the remedy in the pending revision and declined to decide factual questions under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

Hon. Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. Counsel for the petitioner states that controversy involved in the present petition as well as Writ Petition No. 22131 of 2011, Anoop Singh Vs. Smt. Sangeeta Agarwal and others, is identical, hence both the petitions are connected and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 7.9.2010 and 24.3.2011 appended as annexure no. 4 and 8 respectively to the writ petition. A writ in the nature of mandamus is also prayed for commanding the respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid orders and restore possession of the petitioner in the shop in question.

4. Brief facts of the case are that landlady respondent claiming herself to be owner of the shop under tenancy of the petitioner, filed SCC suit no. 102 of 2003, Smt. Sangeeta Vs. Sri Saleem Mohd, for eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute and arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 4305.28P. alongwith future pendentelite and interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement. The trial court after considering the arguments and evidence adduced by the parties, decreed the suit by judgment and order dated 28. 4.2010.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the tenant petitioner preferred SCC revision no. 33 of 2010, Sri Saleem Mohd. Vs. Sangeeta, in the court of District Judge, Agra which is pending final disposal. It may be pointed out here that no interim order was granted in the revision in favour of the tenant petitioner.

6. According to the petitioner, revision is continuation of the suit proceedings and the matter is subjudice before the revisional court. No interim order was granted in the revision. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that though counsel for the landlady had given an assurance that the petitioner shall not be evicted, yet execution application dated 28.7.2010 was filed before the executing court which was registered as execution case no. 47 of 2010. The aforesaid application appears to have been moved stating that since no interim order has been granted in the revision filed by the petitioner, order for delivery of possession of the accommodation in dispute may be passed. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid application has been allowed ex parte vide impugned order dated 7.9.2010, directing for issuance of Dakhal Parwana. It is argued that pursuant thereto, Dakhal Parwana was issued which was returned on 21.2.2011 with the report and no fresh Dakhal Parwana was issued thereafter.

7. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that without issuance of any fresh order of Dakhal Parwana or notice, information or opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the execution clerk prepared and issued order for Dakhalnama and possession of the shop in question has been delivered by the petitioner and taken forcibly by the respondent on the basis of Dakhalnama fraudulently prepared.

8. He also submitted that an application dated 14.3.2011 paper no. 18-Ga was moved by the petitioner before the revisional court bringing to the notice of the court that possession has been forcibly and illegally taken away from him without any notice, information or opportunity of hearing to him during pendency of the revision no. 33 of 2010 and prayed therein for restoration of the possession. Another application paper no. 19-Ga was also moved by the tenant petitioner stating that the landlady is trying to demolish the shop in question and therefore appropriate orders may be passed in that regard.

9. On the aforesaid applications ( paper no. 18-Ga and 19-Ga), the revisional court has passed impugned order dated 24.3.2011 directing the landlady respondent not to demolish the suit property or change its nature and maintain status quo on the spot fixing the case on 28.3.2011 for final arguments. According to the petitioner, the revisional court has not