Judgment Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2-8-1985 passed by the respondent no. 1. 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the property no. 22, Rampur Mandi Road, Dehradun is a commercial building in which MIS Kishan Agency were tenants. An application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, was filed by the landlord Dr. U.c. Chandna and Smt. Santosh Chandna for the release of the premises in question. The landiord has also moved an application 16(1)(b) of the Act. The petitioner has also moved an application under section 151 C.P.C. for staying the proceedings in Case No. 130 of 1985 till the decision of the proceedings under section 21 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has rejected the said application and has recorded the finding that both the proceedings shall go simultaneously. 4. Reference may be made to the decision of 1999 (1) ARC 224 Bishan Chand and others vs. District Judge, Aligarh and others, where it has been held that simultaneous proceedings can be initiated. The observations are quoted below: "The two proceedings can go simultaneously or could be taken one after the other. Similar view was expressed in the case of Jaswant Singh vs. Additional District Judge, Dehradun and others, 1993 (2) ARC 91 wherein it was held that the pendency of suit filed by the tenant seeking declaration of his title on the strength of adverse possession can proceed unaffected by the order of vacancy and release as in such proceedings the question of title was neither warranted nor there was any occasion to determine the same. Reference was also be made to the case of Subhash Chandra Bhatnagar vs. VlIIth Additional Civil Judge, Meerut and another, 1993 (2) ARC 171. 5. Similar view has been taken in 1991 (2) ARC 445 Sukhant Gupta vs. RC & EO, Kanpur and another. It has been held as under: "The proceedings under section 21 of the Act for release of same accommodation can also be initiated simultaneously and there is no legal impediment in this regard. To the present case as the landlord had given intimation with regard to the vacancy of the disputed accommodation. The proceedings under section 12 of the Act are maintainable. 6. To the present case as the landlord had given intimation with regard to the vacancy of the disputed accommodation. The proceedings under section 12 of the Act are maintainable. 6. In view of the aforesaid preposition of law, there is no illegality in the order passed by the R.C. & E.O. and both the proceedings can continue simultaneously. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is herby dismissed. No order as to costs.