Shashi Kant Gupta, J.— Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 25.7.2011 passed by the Addl. District Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi whereby an impleadment application of the petitioner has been rejected. 3. An application under Section 21 of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") was filed by the? erstwhile owner and landlord Jagannath. The said release application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority/Small Cause Court, Jhansi by order dated 23.7.2009. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 23.7.2009, an Appeal under Section 22 of the Act was filed. During the pendency of the appeal, the original landlord Jagannath died and the Respondent No. 1 was substituted in his place on the basis of a registered will which was executed by late Jagannath in favour of the Respondent No. 1, a real grand son of the original landlord Jagannath. Thereafter, after more than one year, an impleadment application dated 2.5.2011 was filed by the petitioner, a married daughter of the original landlord late Jagannath, claiming herself to be the necessary party in the case. The said application was dismissed by the lower appellate court. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 5. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a married daughter of the erstwhile owner and landlord late Jagannath. She is residing in Madhya Pradesh along with her husband. Admittedly, a registered will was executed in favour of the Respondent No. 1 by the erstwhile landlord-owner late Jagannath and the said will has not yet been challenged in any court of law. After the death of erstwhile landlord-owner late Jagannath, during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent No. 1 on the basis of the registered will was substituted in his place. It is noteworthy that the impleadment application has been filed nearly after more than one year by the petitioner seeking her impleadment in the appeal but plausible reasons whatsoever has not been given as to why the impleadment application was not filed earlier. It is noteworthy that the impleadment application has been filed nearly after more than one year by the petitioner seeking her impleadment in the appeal but plausible reasons whatsoever has not been given as to why the impleadment application was not filed earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, being a daughter of the erstwhile landlord, comes within the definition of family as provided under the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act") and has got legal right of residence in the disputed building. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable and cannot be accepted. There is no dispute that the petitioner is living with her husband in Madhya Pradesh. The alleged registered will was executed in favour of the Respondent No. 1 by the erstwhile landlord-owner late Jagannath. As a consequence thereof, the Respondent No. 1 has become the exclusive owner and landlord of the premises in question and the petitioner ceased to have any right over the property in dispute. The counsel for the petitioner has failed to show as to how the petitioner would be prejudiced if he is not impleaded in the case. Admittedly, the release application is being prosecuted by the Respondent No. 1 a real nephew of the petitioner and in case, the property in question is released in favour of the Respondent No. 1, the petitioner herself is going to be benefited as it will be more convenient for her to visit and stay at the house of her nephew (Respondent No. 1) at Jhansi. 6. In view of the above, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 25.7.2011 passed? by the Addl. District Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. _