SANJAI KUMAR Vs. SPECIAL ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BALLIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the writ petition for quashing of the order dated 29.11.1995 and the order dated 12.12.1996 passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Sri Nar Singh Das Agrawal was the landlord of shop in question. Ram Tapesa Ram was the tenant of the premises in question at the rate of Rs. 75 per month. He died many years before. The date of death is not on record of the case. After his death his wife Smt. Maturani Devi became the tenant of the same. Respondent No. 2 landlord filed an application for the release of shop in question under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act for short) for personal need. This application was filed against Smt. Maturani Devi, it was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 15.10.1990. Aggrieved by this order, Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal. During the pendency of appeal Smt. Maturani Devi died. Her date of death is disputed. According to petitioner she died on 12.3.1990 whereas the petitioner states that she died on 18.3.1990. The fact remains she is no more. After her death Respondent No. 2 filed an application for substitution alleging therein that Smt Maturani Devi had no heirs, but Sri Dhruva Prasad and Sri Shivji Prasad, Respondent No. 3 and 4 are claiming, themselves on the basis of Will as such they be substituted in her place. This application was filed on 18.3.1994 and was allowed by the Appellate Court on 29.11.1995.

(2.) THE petitioner is a natural son of Sri Dhruva Prasad, Respondent No. 3. He filed an application on 9.8.1996 for impleadment in the proceeding under the guardianship of his natural mother Smt. Lilawati Devi, that he is adopted son of Maturani Devi and as such should be impleaded as a party. This application has been rejected by the appellate court by its order dated 12.12.1996. Hence the present writ petition. Petitioner claims that Smt. Maturani Devi died on 18.3.1994 and she adopted the petitioner and has also executed registered adoption deed on 16.3.1994, as such he is heir and should be substituted. The appellate court has rejected the application on the ground of delay and maintainability. A person is entitled to represent the estate if he intermeddles with the property of deceased. It is for this reason that Respondent No. 2 had substituted Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in place of Smt. Maturani Devi even when according to Respondent No. 2 they are not the tenants though they themselves claim to be the heirs of the deceased -tenant. The petitioner also claims himself to be the heir. He may also be impleaded in the proceeding. The order dated 12.12.1996 is quashed. The petitioner will be impleaded, as one of the respondents in the appeal filed by Respondent No. 2. The appeal would be decided expeditiously. It is made clear that the fact the petitioner has been impleaded in place of Smt. Maturani Devi does not mean that Smt. Maturani Devi has adopted him or is a tenant. He is merely impleaded for representing the estate of Smt. Maturani Devi. In case the landlord proves his bona fide need, then whether hardship of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 or the petitioner is to be compared with the hardship of landlord -Respondent No. 2 or not should be decided by the Appellate Court. Nothing said in this judgment shall prejudice the rights of the parties. With these observations the writ petition is disposed.