JUDGMENT 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 3. This petition is directed against an order dated 20.3.2010 by which an impleadment application filed by the petitioner in a pending release application has been rejected. 4. It appears that the contesting respondent no.1, Rohit Kumar, filed application no.11 of 2007 before the Prescribed Authority for release of the disputed shop inter alia with the allegation that the proforma respondent no.2, Hemant Kumar, was a tenant of the disputed premises but he was engaged in the business of property development and was not utilising the shop which was required for his and for his family's pressing and bonafide need. The contesting respondent filed his written statement alleging that his mother Shakuntala Devi was the original tenant and after her death, others became joint tenants and he resisted the release on various grounds. During pendency of the release application, the petitioners claiming to be sons of Shakuntala Devi, filed an application for impleadment and after hearing the parties, the same has been rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that in the case of a non residential building, all the heirs became joint owners and if during pendency of the release application, they make an application for impleadment, the Court should normally allow it as they are necessary parties. In support thereof, he has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Gauri Shanker Gupta vs. Anita Mishra & another. 6. No doubt, thiscourt in Gauri Shanker Gupta's case (supra) after relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Textile Association (India) Bombay Unit vs. Balmohan Gopal Kurup & another has held that under U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), in the case of non residential building, all the heirs of the tenants inherit tenancy by virtue of the definition given in the Act and though a decree passed against one of several joint tenants can be executed against others, but this doctrine would not apply where a person claiming to be joint tenant applies for impleadment. However, the question is whether the decision applies to the present facts. 7. The Court has found that there was absolutely no evidence to show that Shakuntala Devi was ever a tenant of the disputed premises. However, the question is whether the decision applies to the present facts. 7. The Court has found that there was absolutely no evidence to show that Shakuntala Devi was ever a tenant of the disputed premises. In fact the contesting respondent in two suits relating to the disputed property had unequivocally stated that he was the sole tenant and running "H.K.Agencies" from the disputed premises of which he was the sole proprietor. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that these two findings of fact are erroneous or perverse in any manner. Thus, until and unless it is found that Shakuntala Devi was the tenant of the disputed premises, the petitioner cannot claim to be a joint tenant and seek impleadment. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.