JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is seeking mandamus issuing direction to the appellate authority to decide the Rent Appeal no. 3 of 2013 filed by the respondent No. 2. The release application under section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. There was no dispute before the Prescribed Authority regarding landlord tenant relationship between the parties. 3. From the order sheet learned counsel for the petitioner demonstrates that in appeal arguments were heard on 20.8.2014 and 30.8.2014 was fixed for judgment/final orders. On 30.8.2014 a third party Smt. Siddiqui Begum filed an application 19-C for amendment claiming ownership. On this application, counsel for the applicant sought time for objection. Thereafter several dates were fixed but the application 19-C has not been disposed of till date. Surprisingly enough the court below had passed an order on 22.11.2014 for issuing notice to one Mohmmad Raheem. From the perusal of the record it appears that non applicant Mohammad Raheem has been directed to appear and bailable warrant was issued on 10.3.2015 for ensuring his appearance on 4.4.2015. Since 4.4.2015 there is nothing on the order-sheet as to whether Mohammad Raheem had appeared or not. However Smt. Siddiqui Begaum had filed her objection paper no. 35 on 20.5.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the court to the application 19-C moved by Smt. Siddiqui Begum. In the said application she has stated that the disputed property was purchased by her by a registered sale deed dated 26.7.1957 from one Khudabux and the shop in question was given on rent to the appellant by her. The release application filed by the applicant claiming herself to be landlady could not be entertained. After filing of this application it appears that original suit no. 404 of 2014 was filed by Smt. Siddiqui Begaum for declaration and permanent injunction on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 26.7.1957 against Smt. Shajahan Begum and Mohammad Raheem. The copy of the plaint of original suit no. 404 of 2014 is on record. It appears that for this reason, the appellate court had issued notice to the Mohammad Raheem. 5. From the perusal of the application 19-C, plaint of original suit no. The copy of the plaint of original suit no. 404 of 2014 is on record. It appears that for this reason, the appellate court had issued notice to the Mohammad Raheem. 5. From the perusal of the application 19-C, plaint of original suit no. 404 of 2014 and the order of the Prescribed Authority, it is apparent that the claim of Smt. Siddiqui Begum is based upon the Sale deed dated 26.7.1957 which is also the basis of declaration sought by her in the Original Suit. This suit has been filed after filing of the application 19-C i.e. impleadment in the appeal. This apart it is further apparent from the order of the Prescribed Authority that there was no dispute with regard to the landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent. 6. In these circumstances this court does not find any justification for issuing notice to Mohammad Raheem by the lower appellate court or to entertain the impleadment application but is not inclined to interfere for the reason that the impleadment application is pending. The lower appellate court is hereby directed to decide the impleadment application 19-C on the next date fixed i.e.16.12.2015 without granting any adjournment to any of the parties. The appeal shall be simultaneously be heard for final disposal within a further period of one week. It is made clear that the court below shall not grant adjournment to any of the parties. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.