Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Through this writ petition, quashing of the orders, dated 18.5.2013 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut in P.A. Case No. 98 of 2004 (Sudhir Kumar and others Vs. Nand Lal Moorjani) as well as order dated 11.10.2013 passed by District Judge, Meerut in P.A. Appeal No. 90 of 2013, have been sought for. 3. Vide order dated 28.2.2013, the petitioner's application no. 110 ga, for disclosing the date of death of Jitendra Kumar, the real brother of respondents no. 1 and 2 and son of respondent no. 3, also to bring on record their heirs and legal representatives, has been rejected. The application was filed on the ground that Jitendra Kumar, who happened to be real brother of respondents no. 1 and 2 and son of respondent no. 3, had sufficient interest in the property, therefore the release application itself is defective by non-joinder of the proper parties. It is contended that in the year 1985, an alleged will was executed by one Shyamo Devi, the grand mother of respondents no. 1 and 2 and mother in law of respondent no.3 in favour of the respondents. Thereafter in the year 1990, the present respondents along with Jitendra Kumar have given notice claiming rent of 3/5th portion of the house from the present petitioner on the basis of will. After some time, suit was filed in the year 1995 by the respondents seeking declaration of their status as a landlord on the ground of alleged 'will' with the further direction to the tenant to pay the rent. In that suit, Jitendra Kumar was not made party. Now it transpired that Jitendra Kumar has died. Therefore, the petitioner has filed an application for disclosing the date of death of Jitendra Kumar as well as bringing the heirs and legal representatives of Jitendra Kumar in the array of parties. The said application has been rejected by the learned Judge taking into consideration the direction of this Court to decide the release application within a period of six months. The release application was filed in the year 2004, whereas the present application has been filed in the year 2013 after nine years of filing of the release application. In substance, the petitioner is aggrieved by non-joinder of proper parties. 4. The release application was filed in the year 2004, whereas the present application has been filed in the year 2013 after nine years of filing of the release application. In substance, the petitioner is aggrieved by non-joinder of proper parties. 4. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. However, it is observed that in case, the release application is defective for non-joinder of the parties, the petitioner can take this ground while arguing the case on merit and if anything turns on this and the release application is allowed, he can also raise this point in appeal. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. ________________