JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Devansh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to delete prayer no. (i) and now the writ petition be confined only with respect of prayer no.(ii) and a newly added prayer no.(v). Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: "ii) issue appropriate writ, order or direction staying the operation of the impugned order dated 30.9.2014 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad in SCC Suit No. 11/96 during the pencency of the review petition bearing number Misc. Case No. 84/2014; (iii) pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; (iv) Award cost of this petition to the petitioner; (v) to issue appropriate direction that the petitioner review application may be considered and decided on the next date i.e. 2nd December, 2014 if that be not possible then application for interim order may be considered." 3. In the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner a suit was filed by the respondent being Suit No. 11 of 1996 (M/S, Modi Spinning & Weaving Company Ltd. vs. Dr. Bharat Kumar Gupta And Anr ) for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent as well as damages before the Judge, Small Causes Court. The suit was decreed on 30.9.2014 with the direction to the petitioner- defendant to vacate the premises in dispute within a period of two months and also pay arrears of rent since 1.1.1992 to 5.4.1994 and damages etc. 4. The petitioner herein has filed an application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 30.9.2014 on 31.10.2014. This application came up before the court concerned on 1.11.2014. The court below has issued notice on the review application fixing 24.11.2014. The petitioner has also filed an application seeking interim protection during the pendency of the review application. 4. The petitioner herein has filed an application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 30.9.2014 on 31.10.2014. This application came up before the court concerned on 1.11.2014. The court below has issued notice on the review application fixing 24.11.2014. The petitioner has also filed an application seeking interim protection during the pendency of the review application. This application has been rejected by the court below on the ground that since period of two months was given to the petitioner to vacate the premises and two months has not expired, therefore, a date i.e. 24.11.2014, prior to expiry of two months, has been fixed but due to strike in the trial court which was continued till 26.11.2014 the matter could not be taken up. On 27.11.2014 the petitioner moved an application requesting the court that since the review application is unlikely to be disposed of before the expiry of two months from the date of the impugned order, the application for stay be listed before the link court for disposal. On the same day the link court had taken up the matter but declined to interfere and stay the operation of the impugned order and directed it to list the matter on 2.12.2014. 5. Sri Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that two months time has already expired on 30th November, 2014 and neither the stay application nor the review application has been decided on merits hence the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court is being invoked of with a prayer to direct the court below either to dispose of the review application or to consider the petitioner's application for interim protection on the date fixed i.e. 2.12.2014. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the averments made in the writ petition it is observed that the court below shall make all endeavour to decide the petitioner's review application on the date fixed or in case it is not possible to be decided, the application for interim protection of the petitioner be considered and decided in accordance with law. 7. So far as prayer no. (ii) is concerned it cannot be granted as the petitioner has got statutory alternative remedy and he has already invoked the remedy of review. 8. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of. 7. So far as prayer no. (ii) is concerned it cannot be granted as the petitioner has got statutory alternative remedy and he has already invoked the remedy of review. 8. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition is disposed of. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day. In case it is not ready, learned counsel for the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an affidavit in this regard before the court below.