IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1585 of 2009 (M/S) [ 1. Lal Mohd. S/o late Sri Bakridi 2. Kamruddin S/o late Sri Wali Mohd. 3. Menudeen S/o Sri Khudabksha All R/o 2 Karanpur, Dehradun, District Dehradun. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Darshna W/o late Sri Dharam Prakash Mehar R/o 39-Old Dalanwala, Dehradun. District Dehradun. 2. Sri Shamshudeen S/o Sri Khuda Baksha R/o 2 Karanpur, Dehradun, District Dehradun. ...………… Respondents Ms. Prabha Noliyal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 25.07.2009, passed by the Prescribed Authority [Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun], in Misc. Case No. 15 of 2002, arising out of P.A. Case No. 43 of 1995. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the landlord respondent No. 1 filed release application for release of accommodation in question in the year 1995 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The respondent No. 2 was the tenant in said building. In the year 1998, the release application was decided in terms of compromise, and the tenant agreed to vacate the premises by 31st of December 1998. However, he did not honour the compromise, and execution proceedings started. On this, the petitioners one after another got held up the execution of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, claiming themselves to be the tenants. When, ultimately there remained no stay order of the execution proceedings, the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 25.07.2009, directed that writ of possession be issued in favour of the landlord. Said order has been challenged before this Court in this writ petition. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court is 3 not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 8102 of 2009 also stands dismissed). [ (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. September 16, 2009. H. Negi