MAHESH CHANDRA Vs. PARMESHWAR DIN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners to claim themselves to be the landlords of a house in the tenancy of Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 was, admittedly, taken in the house by Respondent No. 2. Sometime afterwards, a notice was served on behalf of the Petitioners on Respondent No. 1 alleging that the Petitioners were the owners of the house and, therefore, the rent be not paid to Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 1 having felt that there was dispute between the Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 30(2) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The application was rejected by the Munsif on the ground that the Respondent No. 1 was estopped from challenging the title or ownership of Respondent No. 1 to receive the rent as he was inducted by him. The Petitioners filed a revision to the learned District Judge. The revision was dismissed. They have now come to this Court by means of the present writ petition.

(2.) BEFORE I enter into the merits of the case, I may observe that the writ petition filed at the instance of the Petitioners is not maintainable. The application under Section 30(2) was made by Respondent No. 1. His application was rejected by the learned Munsif. The Respondent No. 1 alone could be aggrieved by the rejection of his application. The Petitioners had not admittedly filed any application and, therefore, they could not be permitted to file this writ petition against the impugned order of the learned Munsif.

(3.) IN the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The stay order is discharged.