JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of this writ petition, the following relief has been sought by the petitioner. "(i) A Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Hamirpur to grant the interim relief in Civil Revision No. 7/2016 Devi Prasad v. Munni Lal forthwith. (2) A Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus restrainning the Respondent from interfering the possession of petitioner over the shop in dispute." 3. It appears that the opposite party in the writ petition filed a release application under Section 21 (1) of the Rent Control Act for release of a shop on the ground of bona fide need against the petitioner, tenant. The release application was allowed on 16.05.1996. The petitioner filed an appeal no. 2 of 1996 which was allowed on 05.08.2008 and the order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside. 4. Aggrieved, the landlord preferred a writ petition no. 57963 of 2008. This writ petition was allowed on 13.03.2014, the appellate order was set aside and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority was affirmed. The consequential special leave petition no. 13066 of 2014 came to be dismissed on 02.07.2014. 5. Thereafter the petitioner filed an objection under Section 47 CPC alleging therein that on the date the release application was instituted before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, he was not the Prescribed Authority under the Act no. 13 of 1972. However, on the date, final judgement was passed, he was competent to entertain the release application. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioner that the order of the eviction passed by the Prescribed Authority against him, was without jurisdiction. 6. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hamirpur by his order dated 21.01.2016 rejected the objection on the ground that the order of eviction had been affirmed up to the Supreme Court, it was not open for the executing the court to go behind the decree. 7. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision which has been admitted, but no interim order had been granted therein and a date has been fixed for hearing on the stay application. Hence, the relief quoted above, has been prayed for, by means of this writ petition. 8. 7. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision which has been admitted, but no interim order had been granted therein and a date has been fixed for hearing on the stay application. Hence, the relief quoted above, has been prayed for, by means of this writ petition. 8. Since the court below, namely, Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hamirpur has fixed a date for consideration of the stay application, It is clear that the prayer for interim relief, has not been refused. 9. In the facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, the mandamus prayed for, cannot be granted. There is no refusal on the part of the court to consider the application for interim relief. A mandamus is issued only in case, an authority is under statutory duty to perform an act which it refuses to perform, despite a prayer, in this regard, having been made in writing. 10. Since there is no refusal on the part of the court concerned to consider the stay application of the petitioner, no mandamus is liable to be issued. 11. The writ petition, therefore, is entirely misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.