MEWA DEVI Vs. VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 11-10-1979 passed by the learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Meerut rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for impleadment of certain persons as proforma respondents in an appeal filed by him under section 22 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge has also dismissed the appeal itself as having become incompetent.

(2.) THESE are the facts. The respondents nos. 3 to 6 moved an application for an order of eviction against the petitioner from a certain accommodation of which the said respondents were admittedly the landlords and Kallu the husband of the petitioner was the tenant. The application was moved after the death of Kalloo impleading only the petitioner as the sole opposite party. Upon an objection raised by the petitioner herself that the other heirs of Kalloo had not been impleaded in the application, the respondents nos. 7 to 12 were also directed to be impleaded as opp. parties in that application. By an order dated 14th of July 1979 the Prescribed Authority allowed the application of the landlord and directed the eviction of the petitioner and other parties who were subsequently impleaded in the application. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner filed an appeal under section 22 of the aforesaid Act within 30 days of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. It appears that immediately after the filing of the appeal an objection was raised on behalf of the landlords to the effect that, inasmuch as the other heirs of Kalloo had neither filed appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority nor were they impleaded as respondent in the appeal, the appeal filed by the petitioner, had become incompetent. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner moved an application on 30th of August, 1979 praying that the other heirs of Kalloo who have been left out might be impleaded in the appeal as proforma respondents. This application was opposed by the landlords on the ground that the period of limitation for filing an appeal having expired, the court had' no jurisdiction to allow the impleadment of those parties at the instance of the petitioner. This objection has found favour with the learned Additional District Judge who has by impuged order rejected that application as well as the appeal itself.

(3.) SRI G. P. Bhargava, learned counsel for the landlord respondents on the other hand submitted that on the facts stated in the counter-affidavit, which were not controverted by any rejoinder affidavit, the landlords are clearly entitled to an order under section 21 for the eviction of the petitioner and that irrespective of the view which this court might form on the legal questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court ought not to interfere. He also supported the impugned order on the ground that it has always been the view of this court that where a discretion has been exercised by the courts below condoning or refusing to condone the delay, this court does not normally interfere.