Rajesh Chawla vs Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge,Meerut and Others

Yatindra Singh, J.—Sri V.P.S. Sarin (Respondent No. 2) is landlord of the premises in dispute. According to him Bhoora Ram (Respondent No. 3) is only tenant of the premises and he illegally permitted the premises to be occupied by other persons. Respondent No. 2 took proceeding for prosecuting Respondent No. 3 under Section 33 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) and also under Section 16 of the Act for declaration of vacancy. In these proceedings the petitioner also participated and alleged that in fact a partnership firm is tenant in which earlier his father was a partner and thereafter he is partner and there is neither any vacancy nor any prosecution can take place. The proceeding of the landlord for prosecution under Section 33 of the Act was dismissed on 18121991 and thereafter his revision was also dismissed on 351994. The proceeding for declaration of vacancy was also dismissed on 1221992. Revision of the landlord against this order was dismissed on 24101994. It appears that no further proceedings were taken against these orders and they became final. During pendency of these proceedings the landlord also filed an application (No. 235 of 1988) under Section 21 (1) of the Act against Respondent No. 3 for release of premises on personal need. In these proceedings the petitioner filed an application for impleadment and this was dismissed on 1981993, hence the present writ petition is filed by petitioner.

2.1 have heard Sri P.K. Jain, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Singh holding brief of NaveenSinha, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 is a pro forma party. According to landlordRespondent No. 2 petitioner is not a tenant but this is disputed by the petitioner who claims himself to be a tenant. In two proceedings namely under Section 33 of the Act as well as under Section 16 of the Act right have been given to the petitioner. In these circumstances in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, petitioner ought to have been impleaded in the proceedings under Section 21 (1) of the Act and should have been heard in the matter. In view of this order dated 1981993 is quashed. Petitioner is also impleaded in this proceeding but this will not prejudice the right of the parties. The parties may appear before the prescribed authority on 6th August, 2001. On that date the prescribed authority may issue notice to the heirs of Respondent No. 3 and thereafter may decide the case in accordance with law expeditiously.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. W.P. disposed of.