SUSHIL KUMAR BAJPAI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorariquashing the order dated 23-11-1996 whereby the Prescribed Authority under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, allowed the amendment/impleadment application filed by respondent No. 3 and the order dated 4-12-1997 whereby the revisional authority dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner as not maintainable.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for releasing the shops in dispute in which the petitioner has been running his business, on the ground of personal bona fideneed. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed a written statement controverting and denying the facts stated in the release application. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for amendment in the written statement pleading that respondent No. 3 was not the landlord/owner of the shops in dispute but respondent No. 4, father of respondent No. 3, was the owner/landlord of the shops in dispute. THE amendment application filed by the petitioner, inspite of objection was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. THEreafter, respondent No. 3 filed an application dated 10-10-1996 for permission to implead respondent No. 4 as applicant No. 2 in the release application. THE said application was objected to and opposed by the petitioner. However, after hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority allowed the application filed by respondent No. 3 and permitted respondent No. 4 to be impleaded as a party by its judgment and order dated 23-11-1996. According to the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 4, under the facts and circumstances of the case, was necessary and proper party. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Court below, i. e. ,v Additional District Judge, under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. Respondents No. 3 and 4 before the Court below raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision. It was contended that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure had no application to the proceedings under the Act. Consequently, revision filed by the petitioner under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, against the order of the Prescribed Authority was legally not maintainable. In support of their submissions, reliance was placed by the contesting respondents upon the decisions in Smt. Shakuntala Deviv. Additional District Judge, Meerut,reported in 1981 ARC 262 and Smt. Surjeet Kaurv. Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr,reported in 1983 (2) AIR 202. THE Court below after hearing the parties upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the revision as not maintainable by its judgment and order dated 4-12-1997. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties.