ROOP NARAIN Vs. RADHA MOHAN KATIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18th Aug. 1977 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur.

(2.) Briefly the facts giving rise to the present petition are that Roop Narain and Munna Lala moved an application for release of house No. 103/280, Colonelganj Kanpur. Radha Mohan Katiyar is the tenant. Santosh Kumar is the third co-owner of the said property. The application was moved by petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and Santosh Kumar was made a pro forma opposite party as he was the co-owner of the said property. The prescribed authority, after considering the material on record, held that the need of the landlords was genuine and as such the release application was allowed by order dated 28th May 1977, Radha Mohan Katiyar filed an appeal against the said order dated 28th May 1977. The appeal was allowed on the technical ground that the application under Section 21 of the U.P, Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act was not maintainable as Santosh Kumar was not an applicant and the application was barred by Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the Act, hereinafter referred to as the Rules.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Rule 15 Sub-clause (2) of the Rules was merely directory and as such the mere non-compliance thereof does not entitle the court to reject the application. His second submission is that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were the landlords, Santosh Kumar was only a co-owner, and as such it was not necessary that he should also have signed the application under Section 21 of the Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.