PURSOTTAM DAS Vs. DEEP CHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case which demonstrates as to how a tenant can successfully delay the eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord. Appeal filed by the tenant under section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter described as the "Act") is pending for 18 years being P.A. Appeal No. 16 of 1986. In the appeal petitioner is the only appellant. In the release application, apart from petitioner, three of his brothers, i.e. Ram Niwas, Sri Niwas and Ghanshyam were also opposite parties. Petitioner in the appeal impleaded his three brothers/joint tenants as proforma respondents. One of the proforma respondents Ghanshyam died during the pendency of the appeal. Petitioner filed substitution application and insisted that notices must be issued to the heirs of Ghanshyam, which could further delay disposal of appeal to the benefit of the petitioner. Said Ghanshyam had not contested the release proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that Ghanshyam, Sri Niwas, Ram Niwas later on filed restoration application, which was allowed. However, on review petition filed by the landlord said order was set aside and against the order of review, restoration application has been filed which is pending.

(2.) BY the impugned order dated 7.9.2005, A.D.J./Special Judge, E.C. Act, has rejected the substitution application on the ground that said Ghanshyam had not contested the release proceedings before the prescribed authority and he had not even filed the Written Statement. As held by the Supreme Court in Harish Tandon v. A.D.M., : 1995 (25) ALR 184 (SC), and A.C. Juker v. K.P. Mantri : AIR 2001 SC 2251, after the death of the original tenant all his heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and even if one of the joint tenants is made party in the suit/case and order of eviction is passed, there is no defect in the proceedings and order of eviction is binding upon all other joint tenants.

(3.) THE writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Court concerned is directed to decide the appeal positively within two months.