BHAGWATI PRASAD Vs. TANVEER JAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Manish Kumar Srivastava appearing for the contesting respondents. This writ petition has been filed by the landlord under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.10.2011 passed by Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 36 of 1987 allowing the impleadment of respondent No. 1.

(2.) Dispute relates to House No. K-63/32, Bhoot Bhairo, Nakhas, District Varanasi. Petitioners claiming to be landlord initiated proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground of bona fide need. During the pendency of the release application, respondent Nos. 14 and 15, herein, are alleged to have sold out their share to the extent of 2/6 in favour of respondent No. 1, Smt. Tanveer Jahan wife of Mohd. Yasin, who was arrayed as opposite party No. 3 in the release application, which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide order impugned in this petition.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that purchaser-respondent No. 1 (herein) is neither a necessary nor proper party to the proceedings and thus could not be joined as an opposite party in the release application. It was also submitted that Prescribed Authority under the Act has no jurisdiction to decide title to the property and only question is to be considered as to whether the landlord is entitled to release of the accommodation in his favour on the ground mentioned in the application. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that it was not even the case of opposite party No. 1 that she was entitled to receive rent.