QURESHIA Vs. RAJJAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition involves only one short question and has been heard finally at admission stage. It is being disposed of finally.

(2.) SHORT question involved in this writ petition is whether an order abating an application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act), is appealable under Section 22 of the Act. Facts are that one Sunder Lal left behind him his widow Smt. Bhagwan Dei, son Rajjan Lal and daughter Smt. Ranno Devi. All the three of them filed an application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act against the petitioners. Smt. Bhagwan Dei and Smt. Ranno Devi died during the pendency of the said release application. Smt. Ranno Devi, it is not disputed, left behind her husband. No substitution application was made. Want of substitution application in place of deceased Smt. Bhagwan Dei was inconsequent because it is not said that she left any heir other than Rajjan Lal and Smt. Ranno Devi. When no substitution application was filed within a month of the death of Smt. Ranno Devi petitioners moved application for abatment of the lease application. Learned Prescribed Authority allowed the application and abated the release application. Against that opposite party Rajjan Lal filed appeal under Section 22 of the Act. In the appeal he applied for amendment of the release application and relied upon a Will of Sunder Lal in his favour. Learned Appellate Court allowed the amendment application and set aside the abatement order. It remanded the release application for further proceedings.

(3.) BUT , as Section 21(6) shows that release if granted not only results into eviction but also determination of release which can be done only by all the co-landlords. It is apparent that for success in a release application all the landlords should be on record. Hence, when no substitution application is made on the death of a landlord the Prescribed Authority should say that the release application is not maintainable and should dismiss it being contrary to Rule 15.