CHANDAN RAI GARG Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel for petitioner.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed against an order by which petitioner's application for impleadment in a Rent Suit No. 18 of 2004 has been rejected vide its order dated 26.10.2009.

(3.) It appears that respondent No. 2 and 3 are owners and landlords of the premises No. 43/223, Meston Road, Kanpur Nagar. One late Mukh Lal Agarwal S/o Sri Hazari Lal Agarwal was the grandfather of petitioner. Late Mukh Lal Agarwal died in the year 1976 and tenancy was inherited by father of petitioner Sri Vijay Kumar Agarwal. He died on 27.5.1993 and tenancy was inherited by respondent No. 4 who is mother of petitioner along with petitioner and two sisters namely Smt. Anjana Jain and Ms. Alpana Agarwal. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 purchased property in the year 2004 and there was some dispute, therefore, they filed a case before Prescribed Authority which was numbered as Case No. 18 of 2004 under Section 21 (1 )(a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 alleging that respondent No. 4 is the only heir and she is the sole tenant. When petitioner came to know regarding aforesaid fact, filed an application for impleadment that he inherited the tenancy from his father and, therefore, he is entitled to be impleaded as party in the proceeding. The said application was rejected by Prescribed Authority on the ground that as Smt. Uma Garg is the wife of Sri Late Vijay Kumar Agarwal and mother has been impleaded as a party, therefore, he is not entitled to be impleaded as party to the proceeding.