JUDGMENT : SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J. 1. Heard Sri Ambika Prasad Tewari learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant/tenant and Sri Umesh Vats, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent no. 2/landlord. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 13.7.2012 in P.A. Case No.9 of 2010 (Ram Kumar v. Chitaranjan Das) under Section 21(1) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 whereby the application 31-C and 32-C have been rejected. 3. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant/tenant is that there is a dispute of title between the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 and his wife Smt. Radha Devi which is pending being of O.S. No. 33 of 1984 and, therefore, till the question of title to the disputed property is decided between the plaintiff-respondent No.2 and his wife, the P.A. Case in question should not be proceeded with by the Prescribed Authority. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent no.2 supports the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the petitioner before me. 6. It appears that initially the defendant-petitioner had filed Writ A No.42872 of 2012 to challenge the impugned order dated 13.7.2012 in which an interim order was granted but ultimately the aforesaid Writ A was dismissed by order dated 11.7.2017 on the ground that judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 26.2.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 2548 of 2009 connected with Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25828 of 2013 (Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others), and judgment dated 25.3.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11761 of 2015 [Thakur Prasad v. Beni Prasad (now deceased) and others]. Now the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is undisputed that defendant-petitioner is a tenant in the disputed house. The application under Section 21(1) of the Act has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.2 claiming himself to be the owner and landlord of the disputed house. In the impugned order it has been observed that the disputed house is a three storied house. 7. It is undisputed that defendant-petitioner is a tenant in the disputed house. The application under Section 21(1) of the Act has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.2 claiming himself to be the owner and landlord of the disputed house. In the impugned order it has been observed that the disputed house is a three storied house. On the ground floor the father of the defendant no.1, Sri Asharfi Lal was tenant and after his death the defendant-petitioner became the tenant. The release application has been filed on the ground of bona fide need of the plaintiff-respondent No.2 for his employment and employment of his sons. In the written statement being paper No.16-C the defendant took the stand that earlier rent was being paid to the father of the plaintiff - Sri Bhagawati Seth and after his death the rent has been received by the plaintiff-respondent - Ram Kumar, but subsequently, it is being deposited in Court under Section 30 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 in case No. 33 of 1991 (Chitaranjan Das v. Ram Kumar). The P.A. Case No. 11 of 2007 (Radha Devi v. Chitaranjan Das) filed by the wife of the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 against the defendant-petitioner under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, was dismissed on 7.1.2009 by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaunpur. 8. In view of the afore noted facts, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 13.7.2012, rejecting the application 31-C and 32-C. Even if suit No.33 of 1984 is pending between the plaintiff-respondent no.2 and his wife still the defendant-tenant can not take benefit of it inasmuch as per his own admitted case he is a tenant and he used to pay rent to the plaintiff-respondent no.2. 9. Thus, applications appear to have been filed to defeat the statutory mandate contained in Rule 15(3) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, that release application under Section 21(1) of the Act, as far as possible, be decided within two months from the date of its presentation. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The cost shall be deposited with the concerned Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 9 of 2010 within three weeks and thereupon the plaintiff-respondent no.2 shall be entitled to withdraw the costs. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The cost shall be deposited with the concerned Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 9 of 2010 within three weeks and thereupon the plaintiff-respondent no.2 shall be entitled to withdraw the costs. It is further directed that the concerned court below shall decide the aforesaid P.A. Case strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within eight months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.