Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. – Orders passed on 20.11.2013 and 27.11.2013 in this writ petition are quoted below: “Learned brief holder of learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Surya Kant states that Shri Surya Kant has not come to the Court as he is not feeling well. However, learned Counsel for the landlords/respondents states that matter is urgent as landlord is residing in a tenanted accommo­dation and according to him petitioner was only caretaker appointed as such by the tenant and tenant has entered into compromise with the land lords/respondents and further this writ petition is directed only against the order rejecting the impleadment application. Learned Counsel for the tenant/respondent No. 2 is also not present and a mention has been made on his behalf that he has got fracture in his leg. List the case peremptorily in top five cases on 27.11.2013. On the said date case will not be adjourned on the illness slip or mention etc.” Order date:-20.11.2013 “Heard Shri Surya Kant, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prashant Singh Gaur, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. Prayer was made for adjournment on behalf of respondent No. 2. However, in view of the order dated 20.11.2013 the prayer was rejected. During arguments on enquiry from Court Shri Surya Kant, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the accommodation in dispute con­sisted of 5 rooms (according to learned Counsel for respondent, 7 rooms) and the rate of rent was Rs. 100 per month. However, Shri Surya Kant, learned Counsel, on enquiry from Court admitted that for last 20 years, particularly during the pendency of the writ petition no rent had been paid to the land­lord. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also argued that in the counter-affi­davit each and every allegation made in the writ petition was not denied. Judgment reserved. The interim order shall remain in operation until delivery of judg­ment.” Order date: 27.11.2013 2. Landlord respondent No. 1 Ganesh Kumar Chaudhary filed release application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. On the ground of bona fide need against the tenant Krishna Bihari Shukla, original opposite party No. 2, since deceased and survived by legal representatives in the form of P.A. Case No. 86 of 1985, Ganesh Shankar v. Krishna Bihari before prescribed au­thority/Civil Judge Senior Division Mohan Lal Ganj Lucknow. On the ground of bona fide need against the tenant Krishna Bihari Shukla, original opposite party No. 2, since deceased and survived by legal representatives in the form of P.A. Case No. 86 of 1985, Ganesh Shankar v. Krishna Bihari before prescribed au­thority/Civil Judge Senior Division Mohan Lal Ganj Lucknow. In the said case petitioner (Ajay Kumar Shukla) filed an application for impleadment claim­ing that he was also joint tenant alongwith Krishna Bihari Shukla, the only opposite party in the release application. The precise case was that Smt. Shanta Devi Vaidya w/o Shri Krishna Bihari Shukla had taken the house on rent on behalf of joint Hindu family of which applicant petitioner was also member. A pedigree has been given in para 6 of the writ petition. Petitioner is one of the four sons of Awadh Prasad Shukla who was son of Madhav Ram Shukla, real brother of Krishna Bihari Shukla, the sole opposite party in the release application. The impleadment application was rejected by the pre­scribed authority on 29.8.2005. The said order has been challanged through this writ petition. 3. Initially on 21.9.2005 stay order was passed in this writ petition stay­ing the proceedings before the P.A. But it was modified afterwards on 1.3.2006 and it was directed that release application be finally decided but petitioner should not be dispossessed if release application was allowed. Thereafter, original opposite party No. 2 Krishna Bihari Shukla, the sole opposite party in the release application entered into compromise with the landlord appli­cant (O.P. No. 1 in this writ petition) Ganesh Shankar Chaudhary and com­promise was accepted by the prescribed authority on 29.4.2006. The compromise application had been filed on 25.3.2004. The compromise was also verified on 1.10.2005 by the Presiding Officer of the Court of prescribed authority. Through order dated 29.4.2006, release application was decided (allowed) in terms of the compromise, however, it was directed that Ajai Kumar Shukla, the peti­tioner of this writ petition should not be evicted in view of the stay order of the High Court. 4. Merely because petitioner is one of the four grandsons of real brother of Krishna Bihari Shukla, it cannot be inferred that house was taken on rent by wife of Krishna Bihari Shukla on behalf of Joint Hindi family. The petitioner in his impleadment application contended that his grandfather Madhav Ram Shukla was the tenant, rate of rent was Rs. 4. Merely because petitioner is one of the four grandsons of real brother of Krishna Bihari Shukla, it cannot be inferred that house was taken on rent by wife of Krishna Bihari Shukla on behalf of Joint Hindi family. The petitioner in his impleadment application contended that his grandfather Madhav Ram Shukla was the tenant, rate of rent was Rs. 100 per month and since 1985 he was paying rent to Chaudhari Girija Shankar attorney of the landlord without any receipt and that his relations with Krishna Bihari Shukla were not good. 5. The landlord contended that late Smt. Shanta Devi Vaidya, wife of Krishna Bihari Shukla was the original tenant and after her death her hus­band Krishna Bihari Shukla became the tenant. (Petitioner Ajay Kumar had also contended that after the death of his real grandfather Mahav Ram Shukla rent was paid by Smt Shanta Devi Vaidya). If house had been taken on rent by M.R. Shukla, after his death, either his son Awadh Prasad Shukla or his brother Krishna Bihari Shukla should have paid the rent. There was ab­solutely no occasion of payment of rent by Shanta Devi Vaidya, wife of Krishna Bihari Shukla. Landlord further contended that peittioner Ajay Kumar had been inducted by Krishna Bihari Shukla as sub-tenant. 6. Neither it was pleaded by the petitioner that Smt Shanta Devi Vaidya took the house on rent for joint Hindi family nor it was possible. There was no allegation that Krishna Bihari Shukla took the house on rent for Joint Hindu Family. After the death of M.R. Shakla, if It was a joint Hindu family, Shri Krishna Bihari Shukla should have been the karta of the same. 7. Accordingly, I do not find least error in the impugned order. Several au­thorities cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not relevant. They relate to joint tenancies. In the instant case there is no question of any joint ten­ancy. 8. As noted in the order dated 27.11.2013, for last 20 years no rent has been paid. Compromise v/as entered into in between landlord and the opposite party in the release application in 2004. Accordingly, since 2004 till date petitioners are liable to pay reasonable rent as they are continuing in possession. 9. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed. 8. As noted in the order dated 27.11.2013, for last 20 years no rent has been paid. Compromise v/as entered into in between landlord and the opposite party in the release application in 2004. Accordingly, since 2004 till date petitioners are liable to pay reasonable rent as they are continuing in possession. 9. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner be evicted from the house in dispute forthwith and for the period of about 10 years (starting from 25.3.2004 the date on which compromise was filed) petitioner is liable to pay damages for use and occupation to the respondent No. 1, which are quantified at Rs. 1500 per month for 10 years (total Rs. 1,80,000). This amount may be re­covered under Rule 24 of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and for the said purpose certified Copy of this judgment shall be treated to be certifi­cate of recovery in Form G under Rule 24(2). Petition Dismissed. __________