JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - An application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by Gopi Chand and Prem Chand (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) impleading Radhey Lal as an opposite party. The application was contested by Radhey Lal. He claimed that the premises had been let out to Sagar Mal, who was his father. On latters, death the tenancy was inherited by Shrimati Swaroopi Devi, the widow of the deceased Sagar Mal and three other heirs of the deceased Sagar Mal, apart from Radhey Lal. These other heirs were Shiva Lal, Ratan Lal and Shrimani Sona Devi. Thereupon, the two landlords got their application filed under Section 21 amended and impleaded Ratan Lal, Shiva Lal and Shrimati Swaroopi Devi and Sona Devi as already stated. During the pendency of the application before the Prescribed Authority, Swaroopi Devi died. The application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on April 25, 1977. Against the said order Radhey Lal filed an appeal before the District judge. He did not implead his brother Ratan Lal and sister Sona Devi in the appeal. Shiva Lal was, however, impleaded as a respondent. An objection was raised by the landlords to the effect that in the absence of all the persons impleaded in the application the appeal was incompetent. On 2.9.1977 the appellate court held that Ratan Lal and Sona Devi were necessary parties and, as such, the petitioner was directed to implead these persons. As a result thereof, Ratan Lal and Sona Devi were impleaded. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, an objection was raised on behalf of the landlords that as Ratan Lal and Sona Devi were not impleaded in the appeal filed on 18.5.1977 their subsequent impleadment on 23.9.1977, long after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the appeal was fatal. The objection prevailed with the learned Additional District Judge. He held that the impugned order of the Prescribed Authority had been passed against Ratan Lal and Sona Devi as well as they had not been impleaded in the appeal within time, the same was not maintainable. The Judge held that Ratan Lal and Soni Devi were necessary parties in the appeal. In the view of the matter the appeal filed by Radhey Lal was dismissed on the preliminary objection raised by the landlords. 2. The Judge held that Ratan Lal and Soni Devi were necessary parties in the appeal. In the view of the matter the appeal filed by Radhey Lal was dismissed on the preliminary objection raised by the landlords. 2. Against the aforesaid judgment the present writ petition was filed. 3. The question that arises for decision is the affect of non-impleadment of Ratan Lal and Sona Devi. As already pointed out that since Shrimati Swaroopi Devi died during the pendency of the application before the Prescribed Authority, her non-impleadment was inconsequential. The main contention urged on behalf of the landlords before me was that in case the appeal filed before the District Judge was allowed, there could have been the conflicting of judgments with regard to the same subject matter. The conflict pointed out was that if the appeal was allowed Radhey Lal and Shiva Lal would not be liable to be evicted from the shop whereas Ratan Lal and Shrimati Sona Devi would be liable to be dispossessed. 4. The submission made on behalf of the landlord does not appear to be correct. Order 41 Rule 4 C.P.C. lays down that where there are more plaintiffs or more defendants than one in a suit and the decree appealed from proceeds one common ground common to all the plaintiffs or to all the defendants any one of the plaintiffs or of the defendants may appeal from the whole of the decree and thereupon the appellate court may reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or defendants as the case may be. It is apparent from the judgment of the Prescribed Authority that the interest of all the tenants was common and inseparable. The order of ejectment passed under Section 21 of the Act by the Prescribed Authority in favour of the landlord also proceeded on the same basis. If Ratan Lal and Sona Devi would not have been impleaded as parties, the appeal could still be decided on merits. Either it was dismissed or allowed. If the appeal was dismissed, obviously, there would have been no conflict of the decisions inasmuch as a result of the dismissal, the order of the Prescribed Authority would have only been upheld. In my opinion conflict would also not arise, had the appeal been allowed. Either it was dismissed or allowed. If the appeal was dismissed, obviously, there would have been no conflict of the decisions inasmuch as a result of the dismissal, the order of the Prescribed Authority would have only been upheld. In my opinion conflict would also not arise, had the appeal been allowed. The final order which would have been passed in the appeal would have been an order for the benefit of Ratan Lal and Sona Devi also. As the interest of Radhey Lal and Shiva Lal on the one hand and Ratan Lal and Sona Deviou the other was inseparable and common there was no question of any in consisting or conflicting judgment being passed affecting the interest of the person not impleaded. The view taken by me finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Mahabir Prasad v. Jagram, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 742 In this case the Supreme Court held that Order 41 Rule 4 C.P.C. permitted one defendant to file an appeal when the decree proceeds on grounds common to all the defendants. The same view taken by the Supreme Court in Ratan Lal Shah v. Firm Lalmandas Chhadomma Lal, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 108 The supreme Court repelled the argument accepted by the High Court if the appeal proceeded there would have been conflicting decisions between the parties. It made the following observations. "But in the appeal filed by Ratan Lal there is no possibility of a decree being passed which may impose a more onerous liability upon Mohan Singh. The trial court had passed a decree against Ratan Lal and Mohan Singh jointly and severally. Mohan Singh is liable for the full amount of the claims of the plaintiffs. If the appeal filed by Ratan Lal succeeds, the court may reduce the liability of Mohan Singh but there may conceivably be no order by the court operation to the prejudice of Mohan Singh in appeal." 5. In this view of the matter, the learned Additional District Judge took an erroneous view on the preliminary ground raised on behalf of the landlords. 6. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the District Judge dated 23.2.1978 is quashed and the case is remanded back to him for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. 6. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the District Judge dated 23.2.1978 is quashed and the case is remanded back to him for deciding the appeal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. There shall be no order as to the costs.