Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136184 Court No. - 37 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8974 of 2025 Petitioner :- Suman And 3 Others Respondent :- Asha Rani And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajneesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Satish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel, holding the brief of Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are tenant and respondents are landlord of the shop in dispute. A proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 has been initiated at the instance of landlords/respondents in respect to shop in dispute which is registered as P.A. Case No.7/2019. In aforementioned P.A. Case No.7/2019, an application for issuing commission filed on behalf of the petitioners/tenants has been rejected under the impugned orders. The revision filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed by the revisional court. Hence, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- "Issue appropriate order setting-aside the impugned orders dated 18.2.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mainpuri in P.A. Case No. 07 of 2019 (Smt. Asharani Vs. Dhirendra Singh) as well as order dated 31.05.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge, Room No.3, Mainpuri in Civil Revision No. 10 of 2025 (Suman and others Vs. Asharani and another)." 3. Counsel for the petitioners states that the application filed on behalf of the petitioners for issuing commission, has been rejected in arbitrary manner by the Prescribed Authority. He further submitted that the application filed in P.A. Case No.7/2019 should be allowed in view of the facts mentioned in the application. He submitted that the revision filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed without considering the case set up in revision. He submitted that the impugned orders should be set aside and the petitioners' application for issuing commission should be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the application for issuing commission, has been filed in order to linger on the proceeding initiated by the landlord. He submitted that the application has been rightly rejected by the Prescribed Authority and the revision has also been rightly dismissed by the revisional court. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, initiated by respondent-landlord is pending before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (SD)/FTC, Mainpuri since 2019. There is also no dispute about the fact that the application for issuing commission in respect to accommodation which has been purchased by the petitioner, has been rejected under the impugned order and the revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. 7. The evidence on record demonstrates that the proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13/1972 filed by the respondent-landlord is pending since 2019 and the application for issuing commission has been rightly rejected under the impugned orders as the copy of the sale deed has already been on record which shall be considered by the court while deciding the proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13/1972 in accordance with law. 8. No interference is required in the matter. 9. The instant petition is dismissed. However, the Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the P.A. Case No.7/19, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months, from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the authority concerned, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 C.Prakash Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad