(1.) The petitioner, an applicant for impleadment in an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), filed the application for impleadment as one of the appellants on the ground that the petitioner is the widow of the original tenant (since deceased), Sant Ram and the respondent - landlords have deliberately not impleaded her as one of the respondents in the application under Section 21 of the Act and impleaded only other heirs of the deceased tenant.
(2.) It is not disputed that Sant Ram, the original tenant, died before filing of application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act by the landlords. The proceedings remained pending before the prescribed authority since the year 2002 to 2005 and it is decided by the prescribed authority only in 2005 but no application for impleadment is filed by the petitioner nor any complaint has been made by any of the respondents that there is one more heir of the deceased tenant, namely, the present petitioner. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the other heirs have colluded with the landlord or that other heirs are not contesting the application filed by landlord. This application was filed by the petitioner at the stage when 9th March, 2005, was the date fixed for arguments in the appeal.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.D. Mandhyan, submitted that according to definition of tenant with regard to non-residential premises the heir includes all the heirs. Thus, the application is liable to be dismissed on the ground that landlords have not impleaded all the heirs of deceased, Sant Ram. The appellate authority has taken the view that in view of law laid down by this Court and the Apex Court that on the death of original tenant all the heirs will inherit the tenancy jointly. In this view of the matter even assuming that one of the joint tenants has not been impleaded this cannot be said to be a fatal defect which may make the application liable to be dismissed only on this ground.