RAJESH CHAWLA Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY CIVIL JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. Sri V. P. S. Sarin (Respondent No. 2) is landlord of the premises in dispute. According to him Bhoora Ram (Respondent No. 3) is only tenant of the premises and he illegally permitted the premises to be occupied by other persons. Respondent No. 2 took proceeding for prosecuting Respondent No. 3 under Section 33 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) and also under Section 16 of the Act for declaration of vacancy. In these proceedings the petitioner also participated and alleged that in fact a partnership firm is tenant in which earlier his father was a partner and thereafter he is partner and there is neither any vacancy nor any prosecution can take place. The proceeding of the landlord for prosecution under Section 33 of the Act was dismissed on 18-12-1991 and there after his revision was also dismissed on 3-5-1994. The proceeding for declaration of vacancy was also dismissed on 12-2-1992. Revision of the landlord against this order was dismissed on 24-10- 1994. It ap pears that no further proceedings were taken against these orders and they be came final. During pendency of these proceedings the landlord also filed an ap plication (No. 235 of 1988) under Section 21 (1) of the Act against Respondent No. 3 for release of premises on personal need. In these proceedings the petitioner filed an application for impleadment and this was dismissed on 19-8-1993, hence the present writ petition is filed by petitioner.

(2.) 1 have heard Sri P. K. Jain, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Singh holding brief of Naveensinha, Coun sel for the Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 is a pro forma party. According to landlord-Respondent No. 2 petitioner is not a tenant but this is disputed by the petitioner who claims himself to be a tenant. In two proceedings namely under Section 33 of the Act as well as under Section 16 of the Act right have been given to the petitioner. In these circumstances in order to avoid multi plicity of proceedings, petitioner ought to have been impleaded in the proceedings under Section 21 (1) of the Act and should have been heard in the matter. In view of this order dated 19-8-1993 is quashed. Petitioner is also impleaded in this proceeding but this will not prejudice the right of the parties. The parties may appear before the prescribed authority on 6th August, 2001. On that date the prescribed authority may issue notice to the heirs of Respondent No. 3 and thereafter may decide the case in accordance with law expeditiously.