JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner is challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 18.1.2011 passed by the Civil Judge(SD)/Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 8 of 2009, Anwarul Haque Vs. Abdul Rasheed, by which application moved by the petitioner for his impleadment as a party, has been rejected. 2. A writ of mandamus is also prayed for commanding the Civil Judge (SD)/ Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar to allow the application for impleadment of the petitioner moved under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. in the aforesaid case. 3. The facts in brief are that petitioner alleges that a registered deed of partition in respect of the house and the land situated in premises no. 193 and other properties was entered into between the forefathers of the petitioner and respondent no. 2 on 3.6.1947. A release application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972, was moved by respondent no. 2 against the tenant-respondent no. 3 which has been registered as Rent case no. 8 of 2009, Mohd. Anwarul Haq Vs. Abdul Rasheed, in which the tenant has already filed his objections. The petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 , C.P.C. in the aforesaid case alleging himself to be the landlord, to which objections were filed by the landlord against impleadment of the petitioner. 4. It appears from record that the petitioner has already filed suit no. 851 of 2009, Sirajul Haque Vs. Mohd. Anwarul Haq, for permanent injunction, which has been decreed against respondent no. 2. 5. The petitioner does not claim to be landlord of the portion in dispute which has been let out by the plaintiff to the tenant at the rate of Rs. 1.50 Paisa per month. The case of the applicant petitioner before the prescribed authority was that a small part of the accommodation under tenancy of Abdul Rasheed, falls into his part of accommodation and for this reason he had instituted the aforesaid suit no. 851of 2009 and filed certified copy of the judgment in that case in the P.A. case alongwith the impleadment application. 6. The Prescribed Authority has rejected the application of the petitioner for impleadment by the impugned order holding that from perusal of the record it is evident that application for release has been filed by Mohd. 851of 2009 and filed certified copy of the judgment in that case in the P.A. case alongwith the impleadment application. 6. The Prescribed Authority has rejected the application of the petitioner for impleadment by the impugned order holding that from perusal of the record it is evident that application for release has been filed by Mohd. Anwarul Haq for eviction of Abdul Rasheed from house no. 193-A, Faithfulganj, Kanpur Nagar and the accommodation under tenancy of Abdul Rasheed consists of a Kachchi Kothari with tiled roof, Verandah and Aagan. 7. It has been held by the Prescribed Authority that house no. 193 and 193-A are adjacent to each other. The petitioner applicant had filed certified copy of the plaint of suit no. 851 of 2009 in P.A. case No. 8 of 2009 in support of his contention to establish that certified copy of the map appended with the plaint shows that a portion of about 6 feet of the room falls into his portion of the accommodation. 8. After considering the facts the prescribed authority has held that landlord has sought only release of the tenanted accommodation consisting of a Kachchi Kothari, Verandah and Aagan and that ownership of the another room had come into the share of applicant's father, Abdul Haq Gulfam and thus the release application does not pertain to release of house no. 193 of the applicant petitioner. 9. Though certified copy of the map has not been appended with the writ petition but the same has been produced by the counsel for petitioner in Court. The map is sanctioned under section 181 of the Cantonment Act, 1924. 10. The petitioner before this Court has conceded that rent of the accommodation in question is not paid to him by the tenant though the map shows that the room in dispute has been divided in two equal parts demarcated by two dot lines but the exact position of possession cannot be ascertained from the proposed map of the building which was to be constructed according to sanction. 11. The Prescribed Authority has recorded a finding of fact that release application does not seek release of any portion in the house of the petitioner applicant. Moreover, release application has been filed only for eviction of the tenant from the accommodation which is in possession of the plaintiff after registered deed of partition in 1949. 11. The Prescribed Authority has recorded a finding of fact that release application does not seek release of any portion in the house of the petitioner applicant. Moreover, release application has been filed only for eviction of the tenant from the accommodation which is in possession of the plaintiff after registered deed of partition in 1949. The petitioner has also conceded that rent is not paid to him by the tenant,hence he has no locus standi in the aforesaid rent case and his application for impleadment appears to have rightly been rejected by the court below. However, if he claims that some portion of the room of the accommodation in dispute does not fall in share of the landlord respondent, the petitioner may move application before the authority concerned/court for demarcation of the house in accordance with the aforesaid partition deed. 12. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.