JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent caveator. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 22.3.2010 by which an impleadment application filed by the petitioner in a pending P.A. Case No.2 of 2007 has been rejected. 3. The respondent landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with the allegation that one Mohd. Ateeq s/o Mohd. Khafiq was the original tenant of the disputed premises which was purchased by the respondent landlord through a registered sale deed of 1998. The original tenant was carrying on a business of Unani medicines from the disputed shop but after his death hardly any activity is being done from the said shop and he needed it for his personal usage and therefore he filed the application impleading one of several sons of the deceased tenant. During pendency the petitioner filed an application for impleadment claiming that he was utilising the said shop and therefore was a necessary party. After contest the application has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that he was a necessary party and he is entitled to be impleaded and if not impleaded, he would not be bound by the release order. In support thereof, he has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Ratan Lal Jain & others vs. Uma Shanker Vyas & others [ AIR 2002 SC 804 ] and also the decisions of this Court rendered in the case of Gauri Shankar Gupta vs. Anita Mishra & another [2004 (54) ALR 81] and in the case of Lalit Kumar vs. Neel Kantheshwar & others [2006 (U.P.) RCC 466]. 5. In the opinion of the Court, the facts in all the aforesaid noted cases were entirely different and therefore, the decisions are of no help to the petitioner. 6. It needs no reiteration that on the death of the original tenant, all the tenancy rights are inherited by his heirs as joint tenants. This has been the constant view and has been held as such by the Apex Court in the case of Anokhe Lal vs. Radha Mohan Bansal & others [ AIR 1997 SC 257 ; Harish Tandon vs. Addl. This has been the constant view and has been held as such by the Apex Court in the case of Anokhe Lal vs. Radha Mohan Bansal & others [ AIR 1997 SC 257 ; Harish Tandon vs. Addl. District Magistrate & others [1995 (1) ARC 220; H.C.Pandey vs. G.C.Paul [1989(2) ARC 26 (SC)] and several decisions of this Court including in the case of Krishna Katyal vs. Kamlesh Gupta & another [2008 (2) ARC 603]. 7. It is also evident from the record that earlier also two brothers of the petitioner had sought to delay the disposal of the release application by filing impleadment application but it was rejected vide order dated 3.2.2009. It is also evident that a learned Single Judge of this Court has directed the Prescribed Authority to dispose off the pending release application within six months vide order dated 25.8.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.43646 of 2008. The Court has no reason to doubt the finding of the court below that the entire exercise including by the petitioner is only to delay the disposal when the matter is fixed for final hearing. 8. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in the case of Anokhe Lal vs. Radha Mohan Bansal (Supra), after following the decision of the Privy Council, has held that impleadment application should not be allowed where it might through open a de novo trial of the suit. 9. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.