THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 125 of 2008. Smt. Shanti Devi, w/O Late Sant Singh, R/O Haalanwali Haweli, Nai Sota, Near Har Ki Pauri, Haridwar, Tehsil & District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. District & Session Judge, Haridwar, 2. Kailash Pandey, S/O Late Devi Dutt Pandey, R/O Haalanwali Haweli, Nai Sota, Near Har Ki Pauri, Haridwar, Tehsil & District Haridwar. 3. Krishna Murti Bhatt S/O Late Sri Ram Murti Bhatt, R/O Haalanwali Hawweli, Nai Sota, Near Har Ki Pauri, Haridwar, Tehsil & District Haridwar …Respondents. . Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri R.C.Arya, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no. 1. Mr. K.N.Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Mr. Tapan Singh Advocate holding brief of Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. Date November 30, 2009. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30- 11-2007 (Annexure-7 to the petition) passed by the District Judge Haridwar in Rent Control Appeal No. 41 of 2007, whereby the appeal was allowed and the order dated 24-7-2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority Haridwar was set aside and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for decision afresh after considering the application moved by third party Krishna Murty Bhatt-respondent no.3 before the appellate court under order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. on merits. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner Shanti Devi moved an application for release of the accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (for short the Act) alleging therein that she is the landlady of the building in question and Smt. Ganga Devi wife of Sri Devi Datt is the tenant in the disputed accommodation/shop at the monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. The tenant used to keep the shop closed and there is not much saleable goods therein. The opposite party being old and senile does not do any 2 business. She has not paid any rent from the month of February 2002 onwards. The applicant-petitioner is in need of the disputed shop for the business of her sons, hence the application for release has been moved. The opposite party Ganga Devi filed her written statement and denied that the ownership of the applicant-petitioner over the shop in question. It has been asserted that the application for release was filed on wrong facts. She also pleaded that she is doing business in the disputed shop. It has also been asserted that the son of the applicant Kailash Nath Pande is engaged in the business of tea etc. and the applicant used to assist her son. It has further been pleaded that the applicant is neither the owner/landlady of the disputed property nor the opposite party is her tenant. The applicant has filed documentary evidence in support of her case, while the opposite party Ganga Devi after filing her written statement did not put in appearance in the case, which was heard ex parte against the opposite party by the Prescribed Authority. After hearing the counsel for the applicant, the Prescribed Authority has held ex parte that the need of the applicant is bona fide and that the balance of comparative hardship also tilted in favour of the landlady-applicant. Accordingly vide order dated 24-7-2007 the application for release of accommodation (paper no. 4-C2) has been allowed and the opposite party was directed to deliver peaceful possession of the disputed shop within 30 days to the applicant. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the opposite party Ganga Devi filed Rent Control Appeal No. 41 of 2007 before the District Judge, Haridwar, which was decided by the appellate court by its order dated 30-11-2007. The learned appellate court has allowed the appeal on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not available to the appellant. 3 Accoridngly, the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority, which gave rise to the present writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.2 Kailash Pandey, who is son of the opposite party Ganga Devi (since deceased). The allegations made in the writ petition have been denied on material points. It has been stated therein that the learned District Judge has rightly remanded the matter to the Prescribed Authority for deciding the ownership of the disputed premises. The petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit wherein the averments made in the petition have been reiterated. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record placed before the Court. Admittedly, the Prescribed Authority had allowed the release application ex parte against the mother of respondent no.2 and the appellate court while setting aside the ex parte order has remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority. Thus, this petition has been filed against the remand order passed by the learned appellate Court. I am of the considered view that order of remand is an interlocutory order. The Apex Court in the case Kshistish Chandra Vs. Commissioner of Ranchi (1981(2) S.C.C. Page 103 = AIR, 1981, Supreme Court, 707] has held that an order of remand is an interlocutory order. No final order has been passed in the release application on merits after hearing both the parties. In my opinion, no prejudice is going to be caused if the release application is heard and finally decided on merits by the Prescribed Authority. Even otherwise, I find no perversity in the remand order passed the learned District Judge vide order dated 30-11- 2007 whereby the Prescribed Authority has been directed to consider the application moved by the respondent no.3 under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. on merits and then to decide the case on merits. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed outright. It would be in the interest of justice to direct the Prescribed Authority to decide the 4 release application moved by the petitioner expeditiously as per direction of the appellate court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the Prescribed Authority shall decide the release application on merits after considering the application of the respondent no. 3 referred to above and as per directions of the appellate court and after hearing both the parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (B.S.Verma,J.) MK