JIWAN SINGH Vs. CHAMPA DEVI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties at length. By the present writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 1.4.2004 passed by the respondent No. 2.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 claiming herself as landlord of the accommodation in dispute. The petitioner contested the release application by filing written statement, stating therein that he is not the tenant of respondent No. 1. After the death of his grandfather Sri Rajendra Singh is in the tenancy of the said property and is running a shop there. After filing of written statement, application was filed for impleading Sher Singh as necessary party. The petitioner submitted his objection stating therein that under the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, there is no provision for impleadment. Said application was allowed and the order of the Prescribed Authority has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner has referred the judgment in Uma Shankar Pathak v. Addl. District fudge, Kanpur,, 1990 (16) ALR 817 where it has been mentioned that: the power to implead a party did not vest either in the District Magistrate, Rent Control and Eviction Officer or the Prescribed Authority. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case Rajendra Singh has been impleaded as a party at the instance of the petitioner himself as he stated in paragraph 6 of his written statement that Rajendra. Singh is the original tenant. Further Rule 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 provides power under the Code of Civil Procedure, whereunder clause (f), it has been mentioned that the powers referred under sections 151 and 152, C.P.C. to make any order for the ends of justice has been provided.