VIJAY LATA SHARMA Vs. RAJ PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal by special leave is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 36462 of 1996, dated September 19, 2002. By the said order, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant confirming the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Aligarh on October 29, 1996 allowing the application of third party of be joined as respondent in U.P.U.B. Case No. 19 of 1989 instituted by Smt. Kamla Devi and another against Raj Pal.

(3.) The facts as stated by the appellants are that one Ramesh Chand Tewari (since deceased) husband of Smt. Kamla Devi (who also died during the pendency of the proceedings) and father of the appellant herein, was owner of the property in question. It was let out to one Raj Pal. Upon the death of Ramesh Chand Tewari, the property was inherited by the appellant and her mother Smt. Kamla Devi. Thus, they became the owners. Since they wanted the premises for business of Anurag, son of Kamla Devi and brother of appellant herein, they initiated proceedings for getting the property vacated from occupation of tenant in accordance with Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The proceedings were initiated in 1992. In 1993, the case came up for hearing. The tenant, however, wanted to delay the proceedings on one ground or the other. In the circumstances, Thakur Radha Krishnaji Maharaj Virajman Mandir, through its Secretary, Banwari Lal Pandey made an application for implead-ment as party respondent alleging that deceased Ramesh Chand Tewari, father of the appellant, had executed a Will on February 7, 1978 in favour of Thakur Radha Krishanji Maharaj bequeathing the property to the temple and hence it ought to be joined as party respondent. The appellants contested the application contending that no such Will was executed by the deceased in favour of temple and the documents were false and fabricated. It was also contended that the applicant was not necessary party and hence his application was not maintainable.