A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) SUBHASH Chaturvedi, the petitioner in the present petition under Article 226, Constitution of india, seeks to challenge the Impugned order dated 6. 8. 2001 whereby the respondent No. 1 (IX additional District Judge) as the appellate authority under Section 22 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 rejected his application for his impleadment as one of the appellants (paper No. 64 Ga) in Rent appeal No. 96 of 1999. even though he has been impleaded (by other legal representatives heirs of erstwhile deceased tenant, Murli Dhar Chaturvedi), as proforma respondent. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case, for the purposes of deciding present writ petition, are not in dispute and may be noted. ( 3 ) MURLI Dhar Chaturvedi, (father of the petitioner) was the tenant of a shop (non-residential accommodation in the municipal limit of Mathura City in U. P.) called the accommodation in question and Shri Krishna Chaturvedi (respondent No, 2) the landlord of the same. A release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short called the Act), was filed by landlord krishna Chaturvedi respondent No. 2, registered as P. A. Case No. 31 of 1997. The release application was allowed by the prescribed authority vide judgment and order dated 12th May, 1999. ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, Murli Dhar Chaturvedi, filed R. A, No. 96 of 1999. Murli Dhar Chaturvedi v. Krishna Chand Chaturvedi, under Section 22 of the Act. During the pendency of the appeal, aforesaid Murli Dhar Chaturvedi, the original tenant, died on 1. 11. 2000 leaving behind him bhoorl Devi (his wife), Smt. Sudha Chaturvedi, Smt. Saroj Chaturvedi and Smt. Sharda devi-three married daughters and four sons, Subhash Chaturvedi (the present petitioner), Satish chaturvedi, Sunil Chaturvedi and Srikant Chaturvedi. ( 5 ) AFOREMENTIONED Satish, Sunil and Srikant Chaturvedi (three sons ). 11. 2000 leaving behind him bhoorl Devi (his wife), Smt. Sudha Chaturvedi, Smt. Saroj Chaturvedi and Smt. Sharda devi-three married daughters and four sons, Subhash Chaturvedi (the present petitioner), Satish chaturvedi, Sunil Chaturvedi and Srikant Chaturvedi. ( 5 ) AFOREMENTIONED Satish, Sunil and Srikant Chaturvedi (three sons ). Smt. Bhoori Devi (widow)and Smt. Saroj (married daughter) after the death of Murli Dhar Chaturvedi (tenant) filed an application for substitution in the above Rent Appeal No. 96 of 1999 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) stating that name of Subhash Chaturvedi (present petitioner) and Smt. Sudha and Smt. Sharda, (two married daughters) be brought on the record of rent appeal as proforma respondents since the said applicant (namely, Satish Chaturvedi, Sunil Chaturvedi, Srikant Chaturvedi, Smt. Bhoori Devi and Smt. Saroj Chaturvedi alone) had Inherited tenancy rights under law after the death of their father Murli Dhar Chaturvedi. ( 6 ) THE said impleadment application was, as appears from the perusal of the order dated 6. 8. 2001, allowed by the appellate court on 31. 1. 2001 and appeal was contested by those persons. ( 7 ) SUBHASH Chaturvedi (petitioner) filed an application dated 7. 7. 2001 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) alleging (i) that other heirs of Murli Dhar did not disclose to him the fact of pendency of the present release proceedings with respect to the shop in question (ii) that he was resident of district Thane (Maharashtra) and (iii) that he came to know of the release proceedings pending before Court recently. ( 8 ) SUBHASH Chaturvedi. however, did not mention as to how and in what manner he came to know of the pendency of the release proceedings. The most relevant facts for maintaining said application was to disclose the source from where he acquired knowledge of the relevant fact (i. e. , pendency of release in appeal) and the exact date when he came to know of the said fact. These facts were conspicuously, not mentioned. ( 9 ) EVEN the name of the person from whom he acquired the knowledge of pendency of the release proceedings was not disclosed. ( 10 ) AN affidavit dated 7. 7. 2001 (sworn by one Neeraj Chaturvedi. son of Sri Prayag Nath chaturvedi) was filed in support of the said application dated 7. 7. 2001 (Annexure-3. pp 29 and 30 of the writ petition ). ( 10 ) AN affidavit dated 7. 7. 2001 (sworn by one Neeraj Chaturvedi. son of Sri Prayag Nath chaturvedi) was filed in support of the said application dated 7. 7. 2001 (Annexure-3. pp 29 and 30 of the writ petition ). This affidavit also did not disclose as to how the said deponent was known related or known to Subhash Chaturvedi. Para 2 of the affidavit only mentioned that the deponent (Neeraj Chaturvedi) was the pairokar of Subhash Chaturvedi and fully acquainted with the facts of the case but how he was related to Subhash Chaturvedi, in what manner he was authorised or deputed to act as pairokar has not been disclosed. ( 11 ) NORMALLY, Subhash Chaturvedi ought to have filed his own affidavit in support of the substitution application referred to above. The fact that affidavit of Neeraj Chaturvedi (as pairokar), was filed creates suspicion in the mind of the Court about his actual presence in mathura. There is not even an iota of evidence to show that Subhash Chaturvedi had strained relations with the other heirs (i. e. , his brothers, sisters, mother etc. ). In that situation there appears to be no good reason why other heir will not be informed of the proceedings under the act. One expects that Subhash Chaturvedi must have come to know of the pendency of the release proceedings from other heirs (his mother, sisters and brothers ). Close relationship between the petitioner and other legal heirs who had filed substitution application create strong presumption of the knowledge amongst all of them. Subhash Chaturvedi made no attempt, by disclosing relevant details to dispel strong presumption of knowledge against him. Evidently the application filed by him (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) contains vague and evasive averments showing his casual approach. ( 12 ) THE respondent No. 1 rejected the said application vide judgment and order dated 10. 7. 2001 noting (i) Subhash Chaturvedi was not present in Court (ii) he was already on record as proforma respondent No. 3, (iii) the other heirs of deceased Murli Dhar Chaturvedi were already on record, who were contesting the appeal, there was no necessity for filing any reply on his behalf, (iv)Subhash Chaturvedi. If so desired, could appear and watch the proceedings personally and place his case before the Court, since he already party to the appeal as proforma respondent. If so desired, could appear and watch the proceedings personally and place his case before the Court, since he already party to the appeal as proforma respondent. The said order also noted some that application for extension of stay order till next date was filed to enable the heirs to engage another counsel on the ground that earlier counsel Sri Radha Kishan khandelwal had declined to conduct the case, another counsel Sri B. B. Chaturvedi had some trouble in his eye and was unable to work and wanted to engage another counsel. Whereas the respondent landlord protested on the ground that this was an attempt to delay the hearing of the appeal in spite of specific order of the High Court to decide the rent appeal within specific time. The court below, however, fixed 18. 7. 2001 in the rent appeal. ( 13 ) IT appears that the appeal could not be heard finally on 18. 7. 2001 as a review application dated 1. 8. 2001 was filed on behalf of Subhash Chaturvedi-petitioner (Annexure-5 to the writ petition ). The said review application has been rejected by the court below vide Judgment and order dated 6. 8. 2001 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition ). ( 14 ) SUBHASH Chaturvedi (petitioner), being aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 10. 7. 2001 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting his application for substitution as appellant and order dated 6. 8. 2001 rejecting his review application, has approached this Court and prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the aforesaid two Impugned orders. ( 15 ) THE court below in its judgment and order dated 6. 8. 2001 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition)specifically found that Subhash Chaturvedi, being closely related to the other substituted appellants being the son of deceased Murlidhar Chaturvedi, cannot plead ignorance of the pendency of the appeal. The court below noted that Subhash Chaturvedi did not challenge the order dated 31. 1. 2001 allowing the substitution application on behalf of his other brothers, mother and sister. ( 16 ) THE said order dated 31. 1. 2001 has also not been challenged in the present petition. ( 17 ) THE aforementioned order dated 31. 1. 2001, not challenged at any stage, no order contrary to the said order can be conceived. 1. 2001 allowing the substitution application on behalf of his other brothers, mother and sister. ( 16 ) THE said order dated 31. 1. 2001 has also not been challenged in the present petition. ( 17 ) THE aforementioned order dated 31. 1. 2001, not challenged at any stage, no order contrary to the said order can be conceived. The court below held that the review application was not maintainable in absence of requisite provision of revision apart from the fact that no ground for review of the said order was made out. ( 18 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has made no submission pointing out any error, much less apparent on the face of record. In the said order rejecting the review application vide order dated 6. 8. 2001. ( 19 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that the order dated 10. 7. 2001 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) cannot be sustained for the simple reason that Subhash chaturvedi being an admitted heir of the erstwhile deceased tenant Murlidhar Chaturvedi, was covered by the definition of the term tenant contained in Section 3 (2) of the Act, which reads : "definition--in this Act. unless the context otherwise requires : (a) "tenant", in relation to a building, means a person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenants death : (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) in the case of non-residential building, his heirs ; explanation. -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 20 ) IN the instant case, noted earlier, the petitioner himself admitted in his substitution application (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) that he was resident of district-Thane (Maharashtra ). The substitution application (filed by the three sons, the widow and the married daughter of the deceased Murlidhar Chaturvedi (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) contains a recital to the effect that tenancy right with respect to the accommodation in question after the death of the deceased tenant, Murlidhar Chaturvedi had devolved upon those five persons only. The three heirs of the deceased tenant, namely Subhash Chaturvedi-son. The three heirs of the deceased tenant, namely Subhash Chaturvedi-son. Smt. Sudha Chaturvedi and Smt. Sharda Devi married daughters were required to be brought on record as proforma respondents. ( 21 ) THE conduct of the parties and the state of affairs brought on record of the case vide para 4 of the writ petition makes It crystal clear that petitioner had no interest left in the accommodation in question in any respect. ( 22 ) PARA 4 of the writ petition reads : "that the present petitioner is permanent resident of Mathura. his parents, brother and other relatives permanently resides at Mathura but few years back, the petitioner along with his family shifted himself and has started small business at district Thane, Maharashtra and now he is residing at Thane, Maharashtra carrying out his small business at district Thane. " ( 23 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits, irrespective of the circumstances and the conduct of the parties, all the heirs of the deceased tenant are necessary party to be impleaded in case of non-residential building and all of them will have a right to contest the release application and the proceedings arising there from to protect their Interest in the tenanted accommodation, namely, an heir of a deceased tenant of a non-residential accommodation, even having surrendered his right and Interest in the tenement is required to be impleaded in the release proceedings. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the following decision ; 1. Sudha Gupta (Smt.) and Ors. v. Prescribed Authority/judge Small Cause Court. Meerut and ors. , 2000 (2) ARC 315 (Sudhir Narain, J. ). ( 24 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then referred to the following decisions : (2) Deo Narain (since deceased) v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer/upper Nagar Magistrate (First) Kanpur Nagar and Ors. . 2000 (3) AWC 2502 : 2000 (2) ARC 401 (R. H. Zaidi, J. ). (3) Surendra Kumar v. XI Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and Ors. . 1998 (2) AWC 1163 : 1998 (1) ARC 463 (J. C. Gupta. J. ). (4) Asha Vaish and Ors. v. VII Additional District Judge. Allahabad and Ors. . 1997 (2] ARC 69 (Sudhir Narain. J. ). (5) Prakash Chand Berry v. Prescribed Authority/vii Additional Civil Judge. Agra and Ors. , 1997 (1) ARC 34 (S. R. Singh, J. ). . 1998 (2) AWC 1163 : 1998 (1) ARC 463 (J. C. Gupta. J. ). (4) Asha Vaish and Ors. v. VII Additional District Judge. Allahabad and Ors. . 1997 (2] ARC 69 (Sudhir Narain. J. ). (5) Prakash Chand Berry v. Prescribed Authority/vii Additional Civil Judge. Agra and Ors. , 1997 (1) ARC 34 (S. R. Singh, J. ). (6) Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar and Ors. , (1985) 2 SCC 683 . ( 25 ) IN none of the said decisions the proposition made by the learned counsel for the petitioner had been adjudicated upon by the Courts. The aforementioned decisions cited at Serial No. 2 is the case of a residential building and hence not relevant for the present case. The case mentioned at Serial No. 4 - Asha Vaish (supra) in para 7 of the Judgment it is held that the Act nowhere restricted right of a person to relinquish his title or tenancy rights in any property. This Court held that in case of deceased tenant, a non-residential accommodation, his heirs, who has abandoned or relinquished his claim/interest in a tenanted accommodation implledly or expressly, then such an heir will not be an heir required to be impleaded in release proceedings inasmuch as such an heir has no Interest left in the tenancy. The aforesaid ratio of law has been laid down in the following decisions : (1) Smt. Anju Sharma v. Suresh Chand Jain and Ors. . 1993 (1) AWC 123 : 1993 (1) ARC 291. (2) Abdul Sattar v. VI Additional District Judge. Allahabad and Ors. . 1994 (1) AWC 249 : 1994 (1) ARC 117. Para 12 of the Judgment of the case of Abdul Sattar (supra), reads : "the surrender of tenancy right may be express or implied. An express surrender effectuates the clear and unambiguous intention of the tenant to surrender and yield up his tenancy rights and in such cases, it is a matter of intention of the parties and not a matter of Implication of the law but in an Implied surrender an Intention to surrender is not express. It may be inferred by law, it may be an Act of the law and takes place independently of and in some cases even in spite of, the intention of the parties. The law infers such surrender from the omissions, acts and conduct of the parties. It may be inferred by law, it may be an Act of the law and takes place independently of and in some cases even in spite of, the intention of the parties. The law infers such surrender from the omissions, acts and conduct of the parties. The essence of Implied surrender is more than often a question of fact depending on the intention of the parties. Their Intention is to be inferred from their conduct. Implied surrender may ultimately to be inferred from the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case. As observed by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Shah Mathuradas Maganlal and Co. v. K. V. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage and Ors. , 1976 (3) SCC 660 , the relinquishment of possession operates as implied surrender. It was clarified by the Apex Court therein that. Implied surrender by operation of law occurs by the creation of a new relationship or by relinquishment of possession. " ( 26 ) APEX Court in the case of Ashok Kapil v. Sana Ullah (dead) and Ors. , 1997 (1) AWC 94 (SC) : 1996 (2) ARC 625. considered Section 3 of the Act containing definition building1. The supreme Court vide para 9 of the said reported Judgment observed "it is now necessary to notice that Section 3 of the Act, which contains all the definition clauses, prefaces with the words "unless the context otherwise requires". Thus, the Legislature, which fixed contours for different expressions through the definition clauses has also provided sufficient play at the joints for contextual adaptations. In other words, contextual variations are not impermissible under the Act if such variations are necessary to achieve the object of the enactment. ( 27 ) ADOPTING the following law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kapil (supra), the definition of the term tenant has to be read and assigned a reasonable and logical meaning and hence, It shall Include such heirs only who have any existing/surviving Interest in the tenement and those heirs who have already abandoned/relinquished their right in the tenanted accommodation impliedly or expressed by having no continuing or surviving Interest in the tenancy on or before the death of the original tenant, shall have no right to be defended. In the light of the above if no rights devolve or same have already been relinquished the question of any such heir contesting release proceedings have no meaning. ( 28 ) FOR the reasons given above, in the instant case there is no room for doubt that the petitioner had no concern with the tenanted accommodation at Mathura and consequently, the petitioner has no locus standi vis-a-vis accommodation in question and the release proceedings in respect thereto. ( 29 ) PETITION has no merit and dismissed. ( 30 ) NO order as to costs. .