JUDGMENT Hon'ble S.C. Chaurasia,J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer that a writ of certiorari may be issued quashing the order dated 08-12-2009 passed by the opposite party no. 1, contained as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition. 2. The brief facts, giving rise to this writ petition, are that Sri Sitaram Agarwal and others, moved an application under section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against Nawal Kishore Agarwal (registered as P.A. case No. 08 of 2007, Sitaram Agarwal and Others Versus Nawal Kishore Agarwal), with the prayer that the opposite party may be evicted from the premises in question, as detailed and described in the Schedule of property, mentioned at the foot of application, and the same may be released in favour of the applicants on the ground that the applicants are the owners/landlords of building no. 215/81-82 Subhash Marg, P.S.-Chowk, Lucknow, which they have purchased through registered sale-deed dated 11-06-2001 from Raj Pal Singh and Ratan Singh, sons of late Baldev Prasad, Smt. Susheela Saxena w/o late Raman Singh and Nagendra Singh, s/o late Raman Singh, residents of Pandey Bazar, district-Gonda. The property purchased by the applicants is a double storied building containing residential and non-residential portion and the said building is about 100 years old, and some portions of it, have been cracked. A shop on the ground floor of the building no. 215/81, Subhash Marg,P.S.-Chowk, Lucknow, was allotted in favour of the opposite party in the year 1963, on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- by the office of Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The major portion of said building no. 215/81-82, was in the tenancy of Smt. Munni Devi w/o Laxmi Narain Gupta, which consists of one room at entrance and three rooms, two verandahs, courtyard, latrine and a godown on the ground floor and on the first floor, there were four rooms and two small rooms, verandah, latrine and bathroom and she used to utilise the same for manufacturing Tobacco and used to reside in the upper portion. In the year 1972, the entire accommodation, which was in the tenancy of Smt. Munni Devi, was allotted in favour of opposite party, Nawal Kishore Agarwal, by the Area Rationing Officer vide allotment order no. In the year 1972, the entire accommodation, which was in the tenancy of Smt. Munni Devi, was allotted in favour of opposite party, Nawal Kishore Agarwal, by the Area Rationing Officer vide allotment order no. 38/C1/72, in case of Vishan Chand and others Versus Nawal Kishore, and by virtue of allotment order, the opposite party became tenant of a portion of said accommodation @ Rs. 70/- per month. The father of opposite party, late Bhagwan Das, was the exclusive owner/landlord of building no. 253/134, Nehru Cross, Rakabganj, Lucknow, which is a triple storied building. After the death of Sri Bhagwan Das, as per his registered will, the said property was devolved into three families, i.e. three sons, namely, Nawal Kishore, Ratan Lal & Chhotey Lal(now deceased). The portions given to his three sons were shown in the map enclosed with the will deed. The families of all the three brothers used to reside jointly in building no. 253/134, Nehru Cross, Rakabganj, Lucknow. Due to some family disputes and unavoidable circumstances, the relations between the applicants and the opposite party became strained and the opposite party started living in house no. 215/81-82, Subhash Marg, Lucknow, and was also doing business from the said house. The rent of building no. 215/82, Subhash Marg, Lucknow, was being paid by opposite party to previous owners/landlords earlier, against the valid rent receipts and after the property was purchased by applicants, the rent was being paid by him to the applicants against the rent receipts and the relationship of landlords and tenant was established between the parties. The applicants made a request to opposite party to vacate and handover the peaceful vacant possession of said premises to them so that, they may construct the building as per their personal requirement, but, he did not agree to vacate the premises. The opposite party, for the reasons best known to him, accommodated his younger brother, Sri Ratan Lal, in a portion of the aforesaid premises, may be for safety and security purposes, or for some other purposes. The opposite party, for the reasons best known to him, accommodated his younger brother, Sri Ratan Lal, in a portion of the aforesaid premises, may be for safety and security purposes, or for some other purposes. When the opposite party refused to vacate the said premises, a legal notice dated 15th July, 2001, was given to opposite party to vacate the said premises, but, the opposite party has not vacated the said premises even after expiry of six months, and the opposite party in collusion with his younger brother, Ratan Lal Agarwal, has created nuisance in the premises in question. The details of family members of applicants have been mentioned in para 13 of the said application and the accommodation is urgently required for residential as well as business purposes for all the 25 family members of the applicants and their need for accommodation in question is bonafide. The opposite party and his younger brother, Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal, have alternative accommodation and in case of their eviction, they would have no inconvenience. The applicants would suffer greater hardship than the opposite party, if the accommodation in question is not released in their favour. 3. The opposite party has filed Written Statement and has admitted that applicants have purchased the disputed property through the registered sale-deed in the month of June 2001, and thereafter, they became the owners of said property and it is a double storied building containing residential portion on the first floor and commercial portion on the ground floor. It is also admitted that he is the tenant of shop @ Rs. 20/- per month since the year 1963. After allotment, he used to make payment of rent @ Rs. 70/- per month to previous landlords, and thereafter, to the applicants and no rent is due against him. He has also admitted that he is residing at the premises no. 215/81-82, Subhash Marg, Lucknow, but, he is not in a position to vacate the said accommodation as he has no other alternative accommodation. He has accommodated his younger brother, Ratan Lal Agarwal, in his residential as well as commercial accommodation from the security point of view and on account of it, the applicants would not be able to eject him forcibly. There are three shops on the ground floor of house no. He has accommodated his younger brother, Ratan Lal Agarwal, in his residential as well as commercial accommodation from the security point of view and on account of it, the applicants would not be able to eject him forcibly. There are three shops on the ground floor of house no. 253/134, Nehru Cross, Rakabganj, Lucknow, and one of the said shops, is in occupation of his younger brother, Ratan Lal Agarwal. 4. During pendency of said proceedings, an application under section 34 & Rule 22(f) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, was moved on behalf of the applicant, Ratan Lal Agarwal, with the prayer that he may be impleaded in the array of opposite party on the ground that Sri Raj Pal Singh, Sri Ratan Singh, Smt. Susheela Saxena and Nagendra Singh, residents of Mohalla-Pandey Bazar, district-Gonda, were the owners/landlords of building no. 215/81-82, situated at Subhash Marg, P.S.-Chowk, Lucknow, and the applicant is in occupation of said premises, as detailed and described in para 1 of the said application, as tenant @ Rs. 108/-per month including all taxes, since the month of August, 1969. Sri Raj Pal Singh, one of the co-owners/co-landlords used to collect the monthly rent of the portion under tenancy of the applicant, but, he never issued rent receipt in lieu thereof. He paid rent to Sri Raj Pal Singh till 10-06-2001, and thereafter, he did not accept monthly rent on the pretext that they are going to sell the building under the tenancy of applicant. On 18-07-2005, Sri Hari Om Agarwal, applicant no. 2, sent a registered notice through his counsel, Sri S.K.Srivastava, informing about the purchase of aforesaid building no. 215/81-82 situated at Subhash Marg, P.S.-Chowk, Lucknow, by him alongwith his brothers, Sitaram Agarwal, Sri Arun Kumar Agarwal, Sri Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and his nephew, Sri Ashish Kumar Agarwal, i.e. applicant nos. 1 & 3 to 5, respectively, through registered sale-deed dated 11-06-2001, from Sri Raj Pal Singh and others, and also demanded rent from the applicant for the period 11-06-2001 to 10-07-2005, amounting to Rs. 5,292/- @ Rs. 108/- per month. On 26-07-2005, the applicant sent arrears of rent from 11-06-2001 to 10-07-2005, through money-order to applicant no. 2, Hari Om Agarwal, but, he refused to receive the rent. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application for deposit of rent in the court of Civil Judge,North(Jr.Div.), Lucknow, which was registered as Misc. 5,292/- @ Rs. 108/- per month. On 26-07-2005, the applicant sent arrears of rent from 11-06-2001 to 10-07-2005, through money-order to applicant no. 2, Hari Om Agarwal, but, he refused to receive the rent. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application for deposit of rent in the court of Civil Judge,North(Jr.Div.), Lucknow, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 132 of 2005, Ratan Lal Agarwal Versus Sitaram Agarwal and others, and deposited rent in the said case through tender. The matter for deposit of monthly rent is sub-judice in writ petition no. 38(R/C) of 2006, Ratan Lal Agarwal Versus Civil Judge,North(Jr. Division), Lucknow and others, preferred by the applicant in this court. The applicants, illegally and forcibly want to dispossess/evict the applicant from the tenanted accommodation. The applicant filed R.S. No. 124 of 2006, for perpetual injunction alongwith an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. on 02-05-2006 against the applicants of the said case, but, the said application was rejected vide order dated 08-03-2007. The applicant preferred a Misc. Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2007 against the said order dated 08-03-2007, and vide order dated 02-04-2007, the District Judge, Lucknow, restrained the applicants of the said case from dispossessing the applicant from his tenanted accommodation. The opposite party of the said case is the real father of the applicants, who was in occupation of a portion of the aforesaid house as tenant, since the time of previous landlords. The applicants of the said case in collusion with the opposite party, has filed the case for ejectment including accommodation which is under the tenancy and occupation of the applicant since 1969, and the said applicants want to evict the applicant from the tenanted accommodation after obtaining eviction order fraudulently and illegally, against the opposite party. In order to enable the Prescribed Authority effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the maters in the controversy between parties in the case, it is necessary that the applicant, Ratan Lal Agarwal, should be impleaded in the array of opposite party. If he is not impleaded in the array of opposite party, the applicant would suffer an irreparable loss and legal injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. 5. If he is not impleaded in the array of opposite party, the applicant would suffer an irreparable loss and legal injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. 5. Sri Sitaram Agarwal and others (applicants of P.A. Case No. 08 of 2007), have filed objection against the application of Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal, to the effect that Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal is not the lawful tenant of the premises in question, and hence, the application for impleadment moved by him, is not maintainable, and is liable to be rejected. Sri Nawal Kishore Agarwal, is the tenant, in whose favour, said premises in question, was allotted by D.M./R.C. & Eviction Officer. Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal, moved an application under section 30(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, in the court of Civil Judge, North, Lucknow (Misc. Case No. 132 of 2005) for depositing rent as a tenant but the said application was rejected on merits. Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal, also filed a suit for perpetual injunction (R.S. No. 124 of 2006, Ratan Lal Agarwal Versus Sitaram Agarwal), and prayed for ad-interim injunction, but, the said application was rejected on merits vide order dated 08-03-2007. Since, the release application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, is confined only between the landlords and tenant and in the instant case, Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal, is not a lawful tenant and hence, his application for impleadment as a party in the said proceedings, is not maintainable on the ground that he is in possession of the said premises and he cannot be treated as tenant. Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal has not filed a single rent receipt to establish that there was a contract of tenancy between him and the previous owners/landlords, Raj Pal Singh and others, or between him and the present owners/landlords, Sri Sitaram Agarwal and others. 6. Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal, has filed Rejoinder Affidavit against the objection filed by Sri Sita Ram Agarwal and others, and has denied the version of Sri Sitaram Agarwal and others, and has reiterated his version. He has further stated that a Misc. Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2007 filed against the order dated 08-03-2007 passed by court of Civil Judge(Sr. Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal, has filed Rejoinder Affidavit against the objection filed by Sri Sita Ram Agarwal and others, and has denied the version of Sri Sitaram Agarwal and others, and has reiterated his version. He has further stated that a Misc. Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2007 filed against the order dated 08-03-2007 passed by court of Civil Judge(Sr. Division), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, was allowed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow, on 07-08-2007, and the said order dated 08-03-2007, was set aside and the application for issue of ad-interim injunction, was allowed and defendants(applicants of P.A. Case No. 08 of 2007), were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff(applicant-third party), from the property in suit during the pendency of R.S. No. 124 of 2006, and the said suit is still pending. The applicants, Hari Om Agarwal and others, and the opposite party, Nawal Kishore Agarwal, are jointly residing in house no. 253/134, Nehru Cross, Rakabganj, Lucknow, and doing business jointly, under the name and style of RAGHUBAR DAYAL RAJESH KUMAR. Sri Nawal Kishore Agarwal, who is the real father of the applicant, Sitaram Agarwal, has executed a registered general Power of Attorney dated 10-01-2008, in favour of the applicant, Sitaram Agarwal, to look after all affairs in respect of his immovable properties and the applicants are in collusion with the opposite party. 7. A Supplementary Counter-Affidavit has been filed on behalf of Sri Sitaram Agarwal, against the Rejoinder Affidavit of Ratan Lal Agarwal, and he has stated that the entire accommodation,which was under the tenancy of Smt. Munni Devi, was allotted in favour of Sri Nawal Kishore Agarwal, and the tenancy is in his name and the name of third party, Ratan Lal Agarwal, finds no place in the allotment order or anywhere-else. It is wrong that Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal, was the tenant since August 1969, on a monthly rent of Rs. 108/-.The house no. 215/81-82 and house no. 215/181-182, Subhash Marg, Lucknow, is the same house and due to typographical error, somewhere, it has been mentioned as house no. 215/81-82 and somewhere, it has been mentioned as house no. 215/181-182.The Misc. Appeal filed by third party was disposed of directing the applicants not to dispossess third party forcibly, from the premises. The applicants have never tried to take law in their own hands and they have already filed eviction proceedings. 215/81-82 and somewhere, it has been mentioned as house no. 215/181-182.The Misc. Appeal filed by third party was disposed of directing the applicants not to dispossess third party forcibly, from the premises. The applicants have never tried to take law in their own hands and they have already filed eviction proceedings. Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal, is the younger brother of tenant and no tenancy right can be accrued in his favour by virtue of it. It is absolutely incorrect and wrong that the previous landlords, Rajpal Singh and others, did not use to issue rent receipts to their tenants. They used to issue rent receipts to their tenants as well as Sri Nawal Kishore Agarwal, and the name of tenant has been mentioned in Municipal Record, but, the name of Ratan Lal Agarwal, has not been shown in Municipal Record. No such notice dated 18-07-2005, was given by Sri Hari Om Agarwal through his counsel Sri S.K.Srivsatava to Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal and the story concocted by him in this regard, is false. 8. Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal, has also filed a Rejoinder Affidavit against the Supplementary Counter Affidavit of Sri Sitaram Agarwal. 9. Sri Hari Om Agarwal, has filed an affidavit stating therein that he is not acquainted with Sri S.K.Srivastava, Advocate, and no notice dated 18-07-2005 was sent by him to third party, Ratan Lal Agarwal. The alleged notice dated 18-07-2005, does not bear his signature. 10. A Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal, against the affidavit filed by Sri Hari Om Agarwal, and he has reiterated his version in the said affidavit. 11. After considering the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned IIIrd Additional Civil Judge(S.D.), Lucknow, has rejected the application B-11, moved on behalf of third party, Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal, vide order dated 08-12-2009. Feeling aggrieved by said order, third party has filed this writ petition. 12. I have heard Sri Mohd.Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was lawful tenant of the accommodation in question @ Rs. Feeling aggrieved by said order, third party has filed this writ petition. 12. I have heard Sri Mohd.Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was lawful tenant of the accommodation in question @ Rs. 108/-per month, since the month of August 1969, and Sri Raj Pal Singh, one of the co-owners/co-landlords, used to collect monthly rent from him and after execution of registered sale-deed dated 11-06-2001, by the previous landlords, Sri Raj Pal Singh and others, in favour of Sri Hari Om Agarwal and others, the applicant no. 2 had acknowledged the tenancy of petitioner by sending a registered notice dated 18-07-2005, and when he refused to receive the rent, he moved an application in the concerned court for depositing rent and the matter is sub-judice in the High Court. He has further submitted that the opposite party, Nawal Kishore Agarwal, has executed the power of Attorney in favour of his son, Sri Sitaram Agarwal, applicant no. 1, and the applicants are in collusion with their father, Sri Nawal Kishore Agarwal, opposite party and want to eject the petitioner from the accommodation in question illegally. He has further submitted that the petitioner is a necessary party in the said proceedings and the nature of his possession may be enquired under section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following decisions of this court :- 1. Chaturbhuj Agrawal Versus Arun Bhatia and Others. 2. Chhakki Lal Versus III Addl. District Judge, Mainpuri and others. 14. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the applicants, Sitaram Agarwal and others, have moved an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, against Sri Nawal Kishore Agarwal, for release of accommodation in question in their favour. During pendency of said proceedings, an application has been moved on behalf of Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal, third party/petitioner for impleading him, as opposite party, in the said application on the ground that he is lawful tenant of accommodation in question, but, he has failed to produce any evidence to establish, prima-facie, that he was lawful tenant of accommodation in question, since the month of August 1969, on behalf of Raj Pal Singh and others, the previous landlords/owners. It is not disputed that the previous landlords/co-owners, Raj Pal Singh and others, have executed the registered sale-deed dated 11-06-2001, in respect of said building in favour of applicants, Sitaram Agarwal and others, and after execution of sale-deed, they have become owners of the said building. 15. Petitioner's version is that the applicant no. 2, Hari Om Agarwal, had acknowledged tenancy of the petitioner by sending the registered notice dated 18-07-2005 to him, and demanding rent from him for the period 11-06-2001 to 10-07-2005, @ Rs. 108/- per month. The applicant No. 2, Sri Hari Om Agarwal, has filed the affidavit and denied the petitioner's version specifically and has stated that he is not acquainted with Sri S.K.Srivastava, Advocate, and he has not sent any notice dated 18-07-2005 to third party, Ratan Lal Agarwal, and it does not bear his signature. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to accept petitioner's version that the applicant no. 2, had acknowledged the tenancy of petitioner by sending a notice through the registered post, particularly when, he has not been able to produce any evidence to establish that he was lawful tenant of accommodation in question on behalf of previous owners/landlords. 16. Petitioner's application under section 30(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, for granting permission to deposit rent in the court, was rejected vide order dated 04-03-2006, and the petitioner has challenged the said order by filing writ petition in the High Court and the said writ petition is pending. The petitioner has also filed the Civil Suit for perpetual injunction against Sitaram Agarwal and others, and moved an application for issue of ad-interim injunction, but, the said application was rejected vide order dated 08-03-2007. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Misc.Civil Appeal No. 44 of 2007, Ratan Lal Agarwal Versus Sitaram Agarwal and others, in the court of District Judge, Lucknow, which was ultimately allowed vide judgment and order dated 07-08-2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow, and the said order dated 08-03-2007, was set aside and the defendants/applicants were restrained from ejecting the plaintiff/petitioner, otherwise, than in due course of law, during the pendency of suit. The civil suit is still pending. These proceedings cannot create a lawful tenancy in favour of the petitioner. 17. The civil suit is still pending. These proceedings cannot create a lawful tenancy in favour of the petitioner. 17. The applicants have given boundaries of the property, which is in the tenancy of opposite party, at the foot of application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner/third party, has also given the boundaries of his alleged tenanted accommodation in para 1 of his application and I find that the boundaries of accommodation in question given in the application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, as well as in the application of third party, are identical. It is alleged by the petitioner that the proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, between the applicant and the opposite party, are collusive in nature. This point would be considered by the learned Prescribed Authority, but, the alleged collusive nature of said proceedings, cannot create lawful tenancy in favour of the petitioner, which has not been, prima-facie, established otherwise. 18. In the case of Chaturbhuj Agrawal (Supra), the application for impleadment moved on behalf of Ashok Bhatia, was allowed by the Prescribed Authority, because, on the basis of evidence produced by him, the Prescribed Authority, came to the conclusion that he is, prima-facie, tenant of the disputed shop. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to establish, prima-facie, that he is lawful tenant of the accommodation in question. Thus, the present case is distinguishable on facts and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit on the basis of said decision. 19. In the case of Chhakki Lal (Supra), an application under section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, was moved by the landlord of the shop, Subhash Chandra, against Ugra Sen, for release of the shop in his favour on the allegations that the shop in question, was in dilapidated condition and also that he needed it bonafide for his own use. Ugra Sen, filed a written statement to the effect that he had vacated the shop in question and had no concern with it and Chhakki Lal, was the tenant of said shop. Thereafter, the landlord amended the application under section 21 of the said Act to the effect that Ugra Sen had illegally sub-let the shop in question to Chhakki Lal. Thereafter, the landlord amended the application under section 21 of the said Act to the effect that Ugra Sen had illegally sub-let the shop in question to Chhakki Lal. A relief was also claimed for ejectment of Chhakki Lal alongwith Urgra Sen. Chhakki Lal, asserted that he was himself the tenant and was not a sub-tenant. In the said background, Hon'ble Single Judge of this court, has held that "If the nature of possession for purposes of enforcing the eviction order can be investigated under section 23, it can certainly be done under section 21 also." In the instant case, the applicants have alleged in their application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, that the opposite party, for the reasons best known to him, has accommodated his younger brother,Sri Ratan Lal Agarwal, in a portion of said premises. The opposite party/tenant, Sri Nawal Kishore Agarwal, has alleged in his Written Statement that he has accommodated his younger brother, Ratan Lal Agarwal, in his residential as well as commercial premises, from safety point of view. Thus, the possession of petitioner alongwith his elder brother, Nawal Kishore Agarwal, is not disputed, but, the petitioner has not been able to establish that he is in possession of said accommodation as a tenant. Under these circumstances, there is no scope for investigating the nature of possession of the petitioner under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The present case is distinguishable on facts and hence, the said decision is of no help to the petitioner. 20. The proceedings under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, are confined between the landlord and the tenant. The applicants have denied specifically the alleged tenancy of the petitioner. The petitioner/third party, has failed to establish, prima-facie, that he is the lawful tenant of accommodation in question. The lawful tenancy cannot be created in favour of the petitioner merely because his elder brother, Nawal Kishore Agarwal, opposite party/tenant, who is alive, has permitted the petitioner to reside with him. 21. I do not find any manifest error of law in the impugned order dated 08-12-2009, so as to call for interference by this court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is devoid of merit and it is dismissed accordingly. The interim order dated 05-02-2010 stands vacated.