1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar, Advocate, for respondents 3/1 to 3/5.

2. Since pleadings are complete, as requested by learned counsels for parties, it was heard finally and being decided at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

3. The facts set out in the writ petition are as under.

4. Petitioner is a tenant of a shop situated at Sri Krishna Bazar, Pargana Saifai, District Etawah ( hereinafter referred to as "shop in dispute"). Initially the shop in dispute was let out to Sri Puttu Lal Jain, father of petitioner Ameer Chandra Jain, who expired long back whereafter tenancy rights devolved on petitioner, who claims to be living with his brother Kailash Chandra Jain and doing business of "Bardana" in the said shop. It is pleaded that his brother Kailash Chandra Jain, respondent no. 4 ( now deceased and substituted by his legal heirs), left for Delhi and settled thereat.

5. The respondent no. 3 ( landlord), Sri Manohar Lal Gupta ( now deceased and substituted by his legal heirs, i.e., respondents 3/1 to 3/5) filed P.A. Case No. 16 of 1996 impleading only respondent no. 4 before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Etawah praying for release of shop in dispute on the ground of personal need, i.e. under Section 21 ( 1) ( a) of U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ( hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"). Therein, respondents no. 3 and 4 filed a compromise whereupon order was passed by Prescribed Authority releasing shop in dispute vide order dated 26.2.1997, relying totally on the compromise entered into between respondents no. 3 and 4.

6. Since petitioner was not a party in the aforesaid proceedings, when he came to know of the aforesaid compromise order, obtained from Court of Prescribed Authority, without impleading the petitioner as party therein, he preferred P.A. Appeal No. 3 of 1997 impleading respondents no. 3 and 4, both, as opposite parties no. 1 and 2 respectively. The appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Etawah vide judgment dated 23.2.2005 observing that appellant ( petitioner in this writ petition) has failed to demonstrate that his father, Puttu Lal Jain, was initially tenant in the shop in dispute and after his death, joint tenancy devolved on the legal heirs of Sri Puttu Lal Jain, and, having failed to demonstrate his tenancy rights, he was rightly not impleaded in the Release Application filed by respondent no. 3. Hence there was no reason for interference by the Appellate Court. The Court also referred to Civil Suit No. 157 of 1997 filed by petitioner himself in the Court of Civil Judge in which an injunction order was passed by Trial Court on 3.3.1997 restraining landlord from evicting appellant ( present petitioner), otherwise than due process of law.

7. The landlord, after rejection of appeal, took steps for execution of decree and delivery of possession of the shop in dispute to him whereupon petitioner filed objection under Section 47 read with Section 151 and Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. read with Rule 22 of U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 ( hereinafter referred to as "1972 Rules"). The said objection has also been rejected by Prescribed Authority vide order dated 10.3.2005, holding that Section 47 and Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. are not applicable to the proceedings under Act, 1972.

8. These are the two orders, namely, Appellate Court's judgment dated 23.2.2005 and Prescribed Authority's order dated 26.2.1997 which have given rise to the present writ petition. Petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid two orders.

9. Landlord, contesting the writ petition, has filed a detailed counter affidavit. Therein, location of shop in dispute is not disputed. It is, however, clarified in para 4 of the counter affidavit that Mohalla Sri Krishna Bazar is different from Mohalla Homganj and Mohalla Gulabbari, Kasba Jaswant