SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. A D J AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 29.7.2011 whereby the application of the Petitioner filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected by the lower Appellate Court.

(2.) An application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act, No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act") was filed by the landlord against the Respondent No. 3 which was registered as P.A. Case No. 62 of 2004 for release of the disputed shop on the ground of bonafide and genuine need. The aforementioned application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 10.4.2007. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 10.4.2007, an appeal was filed by the Respondent No. 3 under Section 22 of the Act which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 17 of 2007. It appears that during the pendency of the said appeal, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the Petitioner on 31.5.2010 seeking his impleadment in the appeal claiming himself to be the co-tenant of the disputed premises. The aforementioned impleadment application has been rejected by the lower appellate court by judgment and order dated 29.7.2011. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner was a co-tenant of the disputed premises and, therefore, he was a necessary and proper party but the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was filed by the landlord without impleading him, as such, the order passed by the lower appellate court rejecting the impleadment application is illegal and arbitrary. It was further submitted that one SCC Suit was earlier filed by the landlord-Respondents No. 2 against the Petitioner and his brother Respondent No. 3 on the ground of arrears of rent and sub-letting. The said suit was decreed by the judgment and order dated 22.2.2007 against the Petitioner and his brother Respondent No. 3. Aggrieved with the said order, a SCC Revision No. 48 of 2007 was filed by the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3 which was allowed by judgment and order dated 22.10.2007. In the said case, it was held that the Petitioner is not a sub-tenant of the disputed premises and he was treated as a co-tenant.