JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, Advocate for petitioner and perused the record. 2. The respondent no. 1 filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") against respondent no. 2 claiming his right pursuant to an adoption deed. The petitioner filed application for impleadment in the said matter but that has been rejected by courts below, hence this petition. 3. It is contended that validity of this adoption deed became subject matter of a suit, i.e., Civil Suit No. 219 of 1995 filed by predecessor of interest of respondent no. 1 in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Jaipur Nagar, where after the death of predecessor interest, respondent no. 1 was also impleaded as plaintiff no. 2/3 and therein the adoption deed was not found valid and the suit was dismissed, whereagainst appeal is pending and hence petitioner entitled to be impleaded. 4. The application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act, 1972 does not involve ownership rights and in case petitioner finds that any stranger is intruding upon his rights, he can always seek remedy in regular proceedings by seeking declaration. Moreover it is also open to tenant to raise a dispute relating to relationship of landlord-tenant in the court below and at this stage it cannot be said that suit by itself is bad for non-impleadment of petitioner. Since petitioner not a necessary party, in the case in hand, therefore, I do not find any patent error in the order impugned in this writ petition. 5. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the remedy open to petitioner, if any, with regard to his right over property in dispute and the observations made above shall not be read against him in any subsequent proceedings initiated by him. 6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is dismissed.