Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139379 Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11675 of 2025 Petitioner :- Abhay Jain And 2 Others Respondent :- Pawan Kumar Jain Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhav Jain Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Madhav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for following relief :- i) Issue writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.7.2025 passed by the District Judge, Agra thereby defer hearing of the application paper no. 5-C filed in Rent Control Appeal No. 216 of 2025 without granting interim protection. ii) Issue writ, order or direction commanding the respondent not to dispossess the petitioners from the shop in question pending Rent Control Appeal No. 216 of 2025 before District Judge, Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 has been decided by prescribed authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra vide order dated 17.5.2025 for releasing the shop in question in favour of landlord. Against the order of prescribed authority appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 has been filed before the district judge along with his stay application. He further submitted that appeal has been admitted but in respect to the stay application the order was passed that after hearing the other side the appropriate order will be passed on interim relief. He further submitted that the respondent is trying to evict the petitioners from the shop in question as such interim protection should be granted during the pendency of rent control appeal before the appellate court. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute about the fact that case under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 has been decided by the prescribed authority vide order dated 17.5.2025 and appeal filed on behalf of petitioner has been admitted but interim protection has not been granted. 6. Considering the fact and circumstances of the instant case that appeal filed by petitioners has been admitted the prayer for interim relief should be granted in view of the ratio of law laid down by Apex Court in the case reported in 1982 (3) SCC 484 (Mool Chand Yadav Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited) and by this Court in the case reported in 2014 (2) ARC 462 ( Kumkum Vs. Arvinder Singh Bagga @ Bablu & Ors.). 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav (Supra) has held that if order under appeal or revision as serious civil consequence then operation of the impugned order must be suspended during the pendency of appeal/revision. 8. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case the instant petition is finally disposed of directing the district judge, Agra to decide the rent control appeal No. 216 of 2025 expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is further provided that till the disposal of appeal by appellate court, the operation of the order dated 17.5.2025 passed by prescribed authority shall remain suspended provided petitioner deposit Rs. 2,000/- per month towards the rent/damages of the shop in question by 7th of every month. The first payment under this order will start from the month of September, 2025. In case of default the interim protection granted by this Court shall automatically vacated. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Gaurav Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad