Anil Kumar, J.

1. Heard Shri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shishir Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.3 to 6 and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29.05.2015 passed by District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri thereby dismissing the appeal and order dated 24.01.2015 passed by Prescribed Authority (Rent Control)/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri by which release application filed by opposite party nos.3 to 6 under Section 21 (1) (b) of Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (hereinafter referred as U.P. Act No.13) of 1972 has been allowed.

3. Facts in brief as submitted by Shri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner are that petitioner is a tenant of a shop situated at Main Road in front of Tahsil, Mohalla, Nai Basti, Lakhimpur, District-Kheri.

4. On 25.01.2008, landlords/opposite party nos.3 to 6 filed an application for release of shops under Section 21 A' of U. P. Act No.13 of 1972, accordingly, P. A. Case No.01/2008 was registered before the Prescribed Authority (Rent Control)/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri and on 09.07.2008, Dr. Saryu Prasad Varma who is the original tenant of the shop filed his written statement.

5. On 20.08.2008, landlords/opposite party nos.3 to 6 moved an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. along with an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. before the opposite party no.2 to implead the name of the petitioner/Dr. Saryu Prasad Varma s/o Bhagwan Deen Varma, R/O Mohalla Rajgarh, Lakhimpur, Pargana and District Kheri as opposite party in the memo of application for release, allowed by order dated 25.03.2009.

6. Thereafter, on 19.09.2009, petitioner filed his written statement that he is the existing tenant of the shop for the last 30-31 years with his brother (original tenant) Dr. Saheb Lal Varma, s/o Sri Bhagwan Deen Varma, has already paid the entire rent of the shop regularly to the landlords.

7. On 19.03.2012, opposite party nos.3 to 6 again moved an application for amendment in the memo of release application, allowed by order dated 02.11.2012 passed by Prescribed Authority (Rent Control)/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur Kheri.

8. On 19.12.2013, landlords/opposite party nos.3 to 6 moved another application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. to which petitioner filed his objection, allowed by order dated 05.02.2014 passed by opposite party no.2. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.37 (RC) of 2014, disposed of by order dated 12.03.2014 which on reproduction reads as under : -

"By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the amendment application.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment application was filed after conclusion of arguments and when a date has been filed for delivery of judgment. He, therefore, states that the amendment application should not have been entertained at this stage.

Be that as it may. This court is not inclined to interfere at this state. In case the Prescribed Authority decides the case against the petitioner and occasion arises for the petitioner to challenge the same, it will be open for the petitioner to press all the grounds that has been taken in this writ petition assailing the order impugned.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. "

9. In addition to the above said facts, petitioner's filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., rejected by order dated 24.04.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.2, Lakhimpur Kheri, challenged by filing Writ Petition No.111 (R/C) of 2014, disposed of by order dated 25.11.2014, operative portion of the same reads as under : -

"In view of what has been discussed above, I do not f