Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1095 (ALL)

NARENDRA KUMAR ROONGTA v. CIVIL JUDGE (J. D. )

2001-11-28

A.K.YOG

body2001
A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Shashi Nandan on behalf of the petitioner. Perused the record. ( 2 ) AN application for impleadment was filed by the petitioner Narendra Kumar Roongta in order to join the proceedings initiated by landlord of the non- residential accommodation in question (subject-matter of the release application registered as P. A. Case No. 9 of 1989 Inder Kumar keriya v. Madan Lal Roongta, under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called the Act ). It is not disputed before the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the tenant of the accommodation in question was Madan Lal Roongta, respondent No. 3, who happens to be father of the present petitioner. ( 3 ) THE impleadment application was filed by Narendra Kumar Roongta on the ground that his father Madan Lal Roongta has become a sanyasi, hence his civil death and accordingly, petitioner who happens to be his son, acquired tenancy right by inheritance. Copy of the impleadment application and affidavit in support thereof dated 19. 12. 1989 have been filed as annexure-1 to the writ petition. The said application was allowed by the prescribed authority, vide, judgment and order dated 15. 4. 1994 (Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition ). The landlord, however, filed an application dated 20. 5. 1994 for recalling of the said order dated 15. 4. 1994 (Application No. 15 Ga/3) which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. From the date chart annexed with the petition, it is evident that the aforesaid application remained pending for one reason or the other and meanwhile Madan Lal Roongta-original tenant appeared and filed written statement/objection against release application dated 6. 2. 1998. ( 4 ) THE landlord, as he was then advised, filed another application (paper No. 39 Ga. annexed as annexure-5 to the writ petition), praying for recall of the order dated 15. 4. 1994 on the ground that in view of the subsequent development Madan Lal Roongta, original tenant himself having appeared and joining the proceedings by filing written statement objection against release application, the order dated 15. 4. 1994 may be recalled. ( 5 ) THE petitioner filed objection dated 25. 5. 4. 1994 on the ground that in view of the subsequent development Madan Lal Roongta, original tenant himself having appeared and joining the proceedings by filing written statement objection against release application, the order dated 15. 4. 1994 may be recalled. ( 5 ) THE petitioner filed objection dated 25. 5. 2001 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) to contest the aforesaid application, paper No. 39 Ga. In view of the change in circumstances, the landlord also filed an application (15 Ga) with the prayer to dismiss his application dated 20. 5. 1994 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), as not pressed. As per date chart filed by the petitioner, it is evident that said application for dismissing the application of the landlord dated 20. 5. 1994 was allowed and the said application dated 20. 5. 1994 was dismissed as not pressed. ( 6 ) THE application filed by the landlord and the objection preferred by the petitioner Narendra kumar Roongta (son of the original tenant), (copies annexed as Annexures-5 and 6 to the petition) were considered by the prescribed authority and the application of the landlord paper no. 39 Ga has been allowed, whereas objection filed by the petitioner (son of the original tenant)was rejected and consequently the order dated 15. 4. 1994 allowing the petitioners application dated 19. 12. 1989 for impleadment in the release application has been rescinded. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that once Narendra Kumar Roongta was impleaded in the release proceedings, prescribed authority was not justified in recalling the said order and depriving him from joining release proceedings. ( 8 ) HAVING considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit and deserves to be rejected for the reason that the petitioner does not dispute that he was allowed to be impleaded in the release proceedings on the ground that his father has met civil death by taking sanyas and that was the basis on which the Court had allowed him to contest the release application. ( 9 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, it is not disputed that his father has appeared and filed written statement in his capacity as the original tenant. Hence question of tenancy right for devolving upon the son of the original tenant does not arise at all. ( 9 ) ON behalf of the petitioner, it is not disputed that his father has appeared and filed written statement in his capacity as the original tenant. Hence question of tenancy right for devolving upon the son of the original tenant does not arise at all. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded, though he strenuously argued for some time that in the facts of the present case, no rights have devolved upon the petitioner of his own, on the basis of which petitioner may be allowed to contest the proceedings. ( 10 ) IN view of the above, judgment and order dated 10. 8. 2001 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) cannot be faulted and the petitioner having failed to point out any manifest error apparent on the face of the record, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 11 ) IN the result, petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. .