Judgment : R. H. Zaidi, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. PRESENT petition has been filed challenging the validity of the order dt 8-7-1996 whereby the application filed by the petitioners for framing and deciding issue on the question of relationship between Landlord and tenant as preliminary issue, has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority. It appears that the contesting respondent filed application under Sec. 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act, No. XIII of 1972. In the said proceedings application paper No. 28-C was filed by the petitioners praying that an issue on the question of relationship of the landlord and tenant be framed and decided as preliminary issues. The prescribed Authority rejected the said application saying that all issues/questions involved in the case shall be decided together after evidence is completed by the parties and dismissed the application by means of impugned order dated 8-7-1996. 3. IT was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there existed no relationship of Landlord and tenant between the parties and the release application was legally not maintainable. The Prescribed Authority acted illegally in rejecting the said application. IT was also urged that the Prescribed Authority was not willing to decide the question of relation ship of Landlord and tenant Between the par ties. 4. THE proceedings under the Act, as it is evident from various provisions contained in the Act and the rules framed there under, are to be decided expeditiously. If various issues of law or fact are taken up separately and are decided by the Prescribed Authority separately, that will give handle to the party who is interested in delaying the disposal of the proceeding/case by challenging the validity of the said orders, before the revisional/appellate authorities constituted under the Act, before this Court, or even before the Supreme Court. By deciding the issues/questions involved in the case in piece meal, in that event the object of the Act, shall be frustrated. Reference may be made to the provisions, contained in sub-rule (7) of Rule 7, sub-rule (4) of Rule 13, and sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 of the Rules, which reads as under: "7 (7 ). As far as possible, a revision under Section 18 shall be decided within one month, an appeal or revision under Section 10 shall be decided within two. As far as possible, a revision under Section 18 shall be decided within one month, an appeal or revision under Section 10 shall be decided within two. months, and an appeal under Section 22 shall be decided within six months from the date of its presentation. 13 (4 ). Every application under this rule shall, as far as possible, be decided within one month from the date of its presentation, and no allotment in respect of a building covered by an application under this rule shall be made unless such application has been rejected. 15 (3). Every application referred to in sub-rule (1) shall, as far as possible, be decided within two months from the date of its presentation. " 5. IN the aforesaid rules the time has been prescribed by the statute for disposing of the applications, appeal and revisions filed under various provisions of the Act. IN case the issues, as stated above, are separately decided, the aforesaid object cannot be achieved. 6. UNDER the Act there is no provisions of framing preliminary issues, even under Order XIV Rule 2 C. P. C. although the same is not applicable, courts are required to pronounce judgment on all issues. Preliminary issues are permitted to be framed and decided if they relate to the jurisdiction of the Court or a bar to the suit created by any Law for the time being in force. No other issue could be framed and decided as preliminary issue. In the present case the issue which was sought to be framed involved factual controversy, therefore, the same could not in any view of the matter be decided as a preliminary issue. Further, parties have al ready produced their evidence and case was ready for final hearing. The order of the Prescribed Authority, therefore, does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. 7. SO far as the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that Prescribed Authority shall not decide the question regarding relationship of Landlord and tenant between the parties, is concerned, the same is totally misconceived. There is no such indication in the impugned order. However, I may refer to sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Act, which provides as under: "21. There is no such indication in the impugned order. However, I may refer to sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Act, which provides as under: "21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.- (1) The Prescribed Authority may, on an application of the Landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists namely - " 8. IT is evident from the aforesaid provision that application under Section 21 can be filed only by the Landlord against a tenant. If the tenant, at the risk of forfeiture of his tenancy rights denies the relationship of Landlord and tenant between the parties, it will be obligatory upon the Prescribed Authority to decide the same on the basis of evidence produced by the parties. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision in the following cases: 1. Chandrika Prasad v. District Judge, Rai Bareli and others, 1981 ARC 346. 2. Ram Chandra Gupta v. VIIITh A. D. J., Kanpurand others, 1982 (2) ARC 236. 3. Ram Narain Saxena v. Hlrd A. D. J., Etah and another 1985 (2) ARC 381. 4. Smt. Suman Lata v. Prescribed Authority (Munsif), Etawah and others, 1985 (2) ARC 454. It is, however, observed that it will be open to the petitioner to raise such questions of fact and law as he is advised to raise before the Prescribed Authority. 9. SUBJECT to the observations made above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.