AJAI SINGHAL Vs. MOHAN LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) AJAI Singhal, the landlord filed release application on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against Mohan lal Gupta, respondent No. 1 in the first writ petition and respondent No. 3 in the second writ petition. Property in dispute is a shop. Release application was registered as P. A. Case No. 22 of 1999 and was allowed by Prescribed Authority, Meerut through order dated 18. 8. 2000. Release application had been filed on the ground that building in dispute was in a dilapidated condition and required demolition and reconstruc tion. Against the judgment and order passed by Prescribed Authority, Mohan lal Gupta filed Misc. Appeal No. 235 of 2000. In the said appeal Smt. Shakuntala Devi, Brij Mohan and Smt. Kumud Devi, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the first writ petition and petitioners in the second writ petition filed an impleadment application. Smt. Shakuntala Devi is mother of Mohan lal Gupta and Brij Mohan is brother and Smt. Kumud is sister of Mohan lal Gupta. It was stated in the impleadment application that applicants being widow, son and daughter of original tenant Kali Charan were also tenants and hence they should be impleaded. Lower Appellate Court/a. D. J. , Court No. 10, Meerut al lowed the impleadment application through order dated 26. 8. 2006. The first writ petition by landlord is directed against the order allowing the implead ment application. Thereafter appeal was heard and dismissed on 24. 5. 2008 by A. D. J. Court No. 10, Meerut. The said order has been challenged, through second writ petition by Smt. Shakuntala Devi and two others, the persons who were impleaded in the appeal of Mohan lal.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners in the second writ petition has ar gued that the Lower Appellate Court in the very first sentence said that more than 30 adjournments had been sought, 10 misc. applications and 4 amendment applications had been filed. According to the learned Counsel for the petition ers, on various stages adjournment was sought by the landlord himself. As is ev ident from the order sheet of the Court below, the impleaded par ties/petitioners constantly hammered that they must actually be added in the memo of appeal. Same argument has been raised in this writ petition.