Judgment S.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8-3-2000 against Smt. Vimla Devi. The landlord respondent No. 2 filed an application for release of the disputed shop on the allegation that he requires bonafidely. The petitioner filed an application stating that Prem Prakash was a tenant and he died leaving behind him respondent No. 3 and eleven daughters. They filed an application for their impleadment which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 8-3-2000. (2) I have heard Sri Ajay Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pankaj Mittal, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. The main question is as to whether the petitioners should be impleaded as parties in the proceeding. Admittedly Prem Prakash was tenant of the disputed shop and under law all the petitioners will be entitled to inherit the tenancy right. (3) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the applicants have no interest in the shop. They had knowledge of the proceeding and just to delay the proceeding the impleadment application was filed. (4) The question as to whether the petitioners will have any interest in the shop is to be decided by the Prescribed Authority while deciding the comparative hardship of the parties. It is true that the petitioner had filed application at a belated stage. In order to avoid any legal complication it would be appropriate that the petitioners would be impleaded as parties. They will file written statement within two weeks from today. The Prescribed Authority shall decide the application within three months. The case shall not normally be adjourned, if it is adjourned not for more than three days. (5) The landlord can also implead the remaining heirs of the deceased Ram Prakash. (6) In view of the above the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 8-3-2000 in hereby quashed. The application shall not be decided keeping in view the above direction. Petition allowed.