PRAKASH CHAND Vs. ARJUN DAS AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the validity and correctness of the order dated 5.6.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra appended as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, by which the application for impleadment filed by respondent No. 2 has been allowed. The petitioner claims himself to be the owner and landlord of the property in question bearing Nos. 29/4-2 and 3 situated at Raja Ki Mandi, Bharat Cinema Road, Agra. He filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the shop in dispute alleged to be in occupation of respondent No. 1. Release of the shop was sought for settling the two sons of the petitioner in business. It is claimed that the family members of respondent No. 1 have acquired various commercial accommodations in the vicinity of the shop in question from where they are carrying their business and have retained the shop in question in the hope and expectation of getting premium for vacating it though respondent No. 1 is neither carrying any business therefrom nor has any need in this regard.

(2.) The release application was contested by respondent No. 1 who filed written statement on 18.9.2007 admitting his status as of tenant of the shop in question as well as claiming the petitioner to be the landlord of the shop in dispute.

(3.) The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after the evidence was concluded by the petitioner in P.A. Case No. 23 of 2006, the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 28.1.2010 granted further opportunity to respondent No. 1 for filing his defence evidence and fixed 11.2.2010 for filing counter-affidavit. On that date, it is alleged that respondent No. 1 instead of filing counter-affidavit, filed impleadment application on behalf of Thakur Radha Govind Chandra Devji Maharaj through its Trustee/President, respondent No. 2. It was objected to by the petitioner by filing reply on 29.4.2010, inter alia that the applicant has no right or title in the property in question and in case he desires to file impleadment application claiming himself to be the owner of the trust property which includes the shop, he may enforce his right through a regular suit.