MOHAMMAD SALIM Vs. SMT. RUCHI AGARWAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the respondent caveator. This petition is directed against an order dated 22.3.2010 by which an impleadment application filed by the petitioner in a pending P.A. Case No. 2 of 2007 has been rejected.

(2.) The respondent landlord filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with the allegation that one Mohd. Ateeq s/o. Mohd. Khafiq was the original tenant of the disputed premises which was purchased by the respondent landlord through a registered sale deed of 1998. The original tenant was carrying on a business of Unani medicines from the disputed shop but after his death hardly any activity is being done form the said shop and he needed it for his personal usage and therefore he filed the application impleading one of several sons of the deceased tenant. During pendency the petitioner filed an application for impleadment claiming that he was utilising the said shop and therefore was a necessary party. After contest the application has been dismissed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that he was a necessary party and he is entitled to be impleaded and if not impleaded, he would not be bound by the release order. In support thereof, he has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Ratan Lal Jain and others v. Uma Shanker Vyas, 2002 46 AllLR 758, and also the decisions of this Court rendered in the case of Gauri Shankar Gupta v. Anita Mishra, 2004 54 AllLR 81, and in the case of Lalit Kumar v. Neel Kantheshwar,2006 64 AllLR 351.