SOHAN LAL AGARWAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. G.D. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sharad Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. H. V. Sah, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The landlord, respondent No.2, Kailash Chandra Sah filed an application u/S 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the shop in question against the respondent No.3 Gajanand Agrawal. The said application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority, against which, Gajanand Agrawal filed an appeal u/S 22 of the Act which is pending consideration. Before the Prescribed Authority, Gajananad Agrawal submitted that he is not the sole tenant of the shop in question and that the original tenant was late Dev Karan Das and, upon his death, the tenancy devolved upon Gajanand Agrawal as well as upon Sohan Lal Agrawal and that Sohan Lal Agrawal should also be impleaded as a necessary party. The Prescribed Authority, after considering the matter, rejected the contention of the tenant and held that Sohan Lal Agrawal is not a tenant and was not liable to be impleaded as a necessary party. This controversy is pending adjudication before the Appellate Court on an appeal filed by Gajanand Agrawal.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal, Sohan Lal Agrawal jumped into the fray and filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. contending that he is a joint tenant and that the tenancy devolved upon him also upon the death of Dev Karan Das and, that the shop, being a commercial shop, could not be released unless the joint tenants are impleaded as necessary parties. This application was rejected by the lower appellate court on the ground that the documents filed by the petitioner indicated that he was not residing in Ranikhet nor was doing any business from the premises in question and that his son Sandeep Agrawal was also not doing business from the premises in question and, consequently, rejected the application for impleadment. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.