SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. GANGA SHARAN GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 29th September, 2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the application filed by the petitioner for being impleaded in the proceedings initiated by respondent Mo. 1-Ganga Sharan Garg against Ajay Kumar-respondent No. 2 under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been rejected. It is stated that the father of the petitioner Hari Prakash, was the tenant and after his death all the sons became the joint tenants. One son Devendra Kumar had died and another son Vijendra Kumar had settled at some other place. The petitioner and respondent No. 2-Ajay Kumar, the remaining two sons were residing in the house and rent was being paid by the petitioner-Sushil Kumar. An application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act was filed by the landlord Ganga Sharan Garg in which only Ajay Kumar was impleaded as opposite party and the petitioner was not impleaded for the alleged reason that he had shifted to another house of which one Mr. Bansal was the landlord. When the petitioner came to know about the proceedings, he filed an application for being impleaded in the proceedings with the assertion that he was residing in the tenanted house and had not shifted to another house as alleged by the landlord. It was also pointed out that in fact the petitioner had been paying the rent and notice had also been served upon him by the landlord but he was not impleaded in the proceedings. The brother of the petitioner Ajay Kumar also filed an affidavit in favour of the petitioner stating that the petitioner is residing in the tenanted house and that he had not shifted to another house.

(2.) The Prescribed Authority rejected the application for the reason that some documents had been filed by the landlord to show that the petitioner had actually shifted to another house and that the application for impleadment had been filed with delay. The Prescribed Authority also held that after the death of the father of the petitioner, the sons became joint tenants and even if one of them was impleaded as a party, the application could not be rejected for the reason that all the sons had not been impleaded.

(3.) Sri B. Dayal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Prescribed Authority committed an illegality in rejecting the application. It is his submission that there was no material on the record to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had actually shifted to another house and the petitioner continues to reside in the house but for ulterior motives the landlord did not implead him as a party. It is also his assertion that after the death of the father, the sons may be residing as joint tenants but if during the pendency of the proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of the Act, an application is filed by a son who has not been impleaded as a party, then the Court should not reject the application for the reason that one son is already a party. He has further submitted that the petitioner is not interested in delaying the proceedings and will have no objection if the Court issues directions for deciding the application filed under section 21(1)(a) of the Act within a reasonable time.