KRISHAN MUTI BHATT Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Lok Pal Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Narendra Bali, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Petitioner Krishan Murti Bhatt and opposite party no.1 Smt. Shanti Devi are alleged to be co-landlords. A partition suit filed by the father of the petitioner was decreed on 13th January, 1993 and, ultimately in the execution proceedings, the property in question has gone into the share of opposite party no.1 Smt. Shanti Devi. It has been alleged that the petitioner has preferred an appeal which is pending consideration. This property is a shop in which Kailash Pandey respondent no.2 is a tenant. The opposite party no.1 has filed an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 before the prescribed authority being P.A. Case No.16/2006 for the release of the shop in her favour after eviction of respondent no.2. Similarly, the petitioner has also filed an application as P.A. Case No.1/2007 for eviction of respondent no.2 and the release of the shop in his favour. Notwithstanding the pendency of the application for release of the shop, the petitioner has also moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for impleadment as a necessary party. This application has been rejected by the court below against which the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the release application of the petitioner being P.A. Case No.1/2007 has been dismissed for want of prosecution. THE learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that a restoration application is pending consideration.