Het Singh Yadav, JJ.— The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for quashing the notice dated 11.7.2012 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 2 [Nagar Parishad, Hathras, (Mahamaya Nagar)]. 2. From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner claims himself to be the son of one Kanhaiya Lal, who had taken the property in question on rent in the year 1990 from the respondent No. 4. The said Kanhaiya Lal was running hotel in the property in question. The said Kanhaiya Lal is stated to have expired in the year 2006, and the petitioner claims that he has been continuing to run hotel business in the property in question since the death of his father. 3. It is further averred to the writ petition that the respondent No. 4 has filed a suit being Original Suit No. 94 of 2009 against the petitioner and the other family members of the said Kanhaiya Lal, inter alia, praying for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the said suit (petitioner and other family members of the said Kanhaiya Lal) from damaging the property in question, raising any new construction and changing the nature of the property in question. 4. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that an injunction order dated 2.3.2009 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) has been passed in the said suit directing the parties to maintain status quo in regard to the property in question during the pendency of the said suit. The said injunction order is stated to be still operative. 5. It is, inter alia, further averred in the writ petition that the impugned notice dated 11.7.2012 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) has been issued to the petitioner, inter alia, stating that the petitioner is making illegal construction of latrine at the place of 'tanga' tempo stand and is trying to illegally occupy the land of 'tanga' tempo stand, and that the petitioner should remove the said illegal construction. It further appears from a perusal of the writ petition and the annexures thereto that an order dated 19.9.2012 had been passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Hathras directing for eviction of the petitioner but subsequently by the order dated 28.9.2012, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Hathras directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to enquire into the matter, and in case the order of Civil Court in regard to the land was operative, then no eviction be done pursuant to the said order dated 19.9.2012.-Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate submitted his report dated 20.10.2012 to the Additional District Magistrate, Hathras, inter alia, stating that the matter was pending before the Civil Court, and the status quo order passed by the Civil Court was operative, and in the circumstances, no action was required to be taken on the spot. 6. From the narration of the facts above, it is evident that a civil suit is pending between the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner wherein status quo order is stated to have been passed by the Civil Court, which is still operative. It further appears that the additional District Magistrate, Hathras passed an order dated 19.9.2012 for eviction of the petitioner but subsequently the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Hathras by the order dated 28.9.2012 directed that eviction be not done in case the order of Civil Court in regard to the land in question was operative. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has thereafter submitted report that no action was required to be taken on the spot. 7. It is thus evident that the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding the alleged threat of eviction, is misconceived. Even otherwise, from a perusal of the notice dated 11.7.2012, it is evident that the allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner is making illegal construction of latrine at the place of 'tanga' tempo stand, and is trying to illegally occupy the land of 'tanga' tempo stand. Notice dated 11.7.2012 has been issued to the petitioner in this regard. 8. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed, and the same is accordingly dismissed. Dismissed. _____________