LALIT KUMAR Vs. NEEL KANTHESHWAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Tarun Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Pandey appearing for contesting respondent No. 1. Challenge in this writ petition has been made to the order dated 28.3.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Anoopshahr, and Bulandshahr rejecting the application for impleadment filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts are that respondent No. 1 landlord filed J.S.C.C. Suit No. 68 of 1995 for arrears of rent and ejectment. It was pleaded in paragraph 2 of the plaint that the shop in dispute was taken on rent by Sri Hari Shankar, the father and husband of defendant/tenants and after his death they inherited the tenancy and hence became tenants. The suit was contested by the tenants by filing written statement. Apart from other pleadings one of the grounds taken was that all the heirs of deceased tenant Hari Shankar have not been impleaded as party. The Trial Court though noted this objection in its judgment but without considering the same decreed the suit vide order -dated 24.3.2004. Feeling aggrieved, tenant/respondents went up in revision. During the pendency of the revision the petitioner moved an application seeking impleadment on the ground that he was also the heir of deceased -tenant Hari Shankar and is liable to be impleaded in the proceedings. The Revisional Court vide impugned judgment dated 28.3.2006 dismissed the application on the ground that after the death of tenant, his heirs inherited the tenancy jointly and decree passed against one or some of tenant is binding on non -impleaded tenants also.

(3.) I am in respectfully agreement with a view taken by the learned Single Judge.