DEEPAK GUPTA Vs. URMILA AGGARWAL & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others:

(2.) The father of petitioner was a tenant in the premises in question. On 18.09.1988, when the original tenant died, he left behind his legal heirs. Being legal heir, petitioner and Sanjay Gupta (respondent no. 6) inherited the tenancy rights in premises in question. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 filed a release application in the year 2010 before the Prescribed Authority under Section 21(1)(A) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short Act no. 13 of 1972) on the ground of personal need. The said case was registered as P.A. case no. 43 of 2010, Smt. Urmila Aggarwal vs Sanjay Gupta. On 23.08.2012, brother of petitioner (Sanjay Gupta), who has been pursuing the P.A. case, informed the petitioner that the premises in question has to be vacated within one month, which, on subsequent enquiry, was found to be false. Matter was fixed for final hearing. The petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implicate him as proper and necessary party.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that if such an application is not allowed the whole purpose of the proceedings will be defeated. It may be noted here that the proceedings under Act no. 13 of 1972 are summary in nature where the dispute is, largely, adjudicated on the basis of affidavits of the parties.