B.S. Verma, J.;- (Interim Relief Application No. 335 of 2011) Heard Mr. Devesh Upreti, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6- 12-2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun in Rent Case No. 42 of 2005, Bishan Kumar Versus Vidhya Devi. Petitioner has further prayed to allow the impleadment application, paper no. 188-Ka, of the petitioner. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent no.1 moved a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (for short the Act) against the respondent nos. 2 to 4, on the ground of bona fide need, claiming himself owner and landlord of the shop in question. The petitioner filed impleadment application paper no. 188-Ka alleging himself to be the owner and landlord of the shop in question. Objections 192- Ka have been filed by the respondent no. 1. It is alleged in paragraph no. 5 of the application, paper no. 188-Ka, that the shop was mortgaged in favour of Lala Chirangi Lal and Hardayal on 16-6-1924 but no title was transferred in their favour. The petitioner has also filed Civil Suit No. 367 of 2010, Kamal Kumar Adhikari Vs. Bishan Kumar and 2 others for declaration of his rights in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun. The learned Prescribed Authority after considering the objection filed by the respondent no.1 dismissed the impleadment application, paper no. 188-Ka, relying upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Shanti George Singh Vs. Prescribed Authority (I Additional Civil Judge) Bareilly and others, reported in Allahabad Rent Case, 1987 Volume 1, Page 252. In that case, in paragraph no.9 it has been observed that for purposes of deciding an application under Section 21 of the Act only the relationship of landlord and tenant has to be ascertained by the Court. If any civil suit had been filed, that will not affect the maintainability of the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act against the tenant. If any civil suit had been filed, that will not affect the maintainability of the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act against the tenant. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the learned Prescribed Authority has rightly passed the impugned order thereby rejecting the application, paper no. 188-Ka moved by the petitioner. I find no manifest error of law or perversity in the order impugned. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. All pending applications stand disposed of.