JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.9.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, rejecting petitioner's application for impleadment observing that at the best petitioner is in the capacity of co-owner and that being so, his impleadment is neither necessary nor obligatory. It has been held that co-owner himself can institute a suit for eviction of the tenant and if other co-owners are not impleaded, that will not make any legal or otherwise infirmity. 2. This issue is squarely covered by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gopal Dass and another Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1987 (1) ARC 281 , wherein this Court after considering Rule 15 (2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1972") held as under: " So far as the applicability of this Rule to the present case is concerned, there is no problem. Murlidhar Sah who has brought the action for eviction of the premises in question is undoubtedly the landlord. He has signed the application. He alone is competent to sign the application. However, we may point out that the requirement of Rule 15(2) that an application for release of premises owned by co-owners should be signed by all co-owners would be invalid. One co-owner is competent to maintain an action for eviction of the tenant of the entire premises, since he can be considered as a landlord within the meaning of Section 3 (j) of the Act. One co-owner alone would be competent to sign such an application." 3. Moreover prior to said full Bench, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Pasricha Vs. Jagannath and others AIR 1976 SC 2335 held as under : - " It is therefore, clear that the rule that a co-owner may maintain an action to eject a trespasser without joining other co-owners in such action can have no application where a co-owners seeks to evict a tenant who is in possession of the property after determination of the lease." 4. The Apex Court in Ram Paricha (supra) further observed as under: "Jurisprudentially, it is not correct to say that a co-owner of a property is not its owner. The Apex Court in Ram Paricha (supra) further observed as under: "Jurisprudentially, it is not correct to say that a co-owner of a property is not its owner. He owns every part of the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property. The position will change only when partition takes place. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission that the plaintiff who is admittedly the landlord and co-owner of the premises is not the owner of the premises ... It is not necessary to establish that the plaintiff is the only owner of the property ... as long as he is a co-owner of the property being at same time the acknowledged of the defendants." 5. In Rang Nath V. State of U.P. and others 1984 (1) ARC 642 it was held that a suit for eviction filed under Section 21 of the Act by one of the co-owner-landlord alone is maintainable. The same view has been taken in Smt. Vatsala Nayar Vs.Vandana Tandon and others 1988 (1) ARC 57, Vijay Bhatt Vs. Shri Julian Abraham and another 2004 (3) ARC 519 and Kishan (Shree) Vs. Additional District and Sessions Judge and others 2005 (1) ARC 742 . 6. In view of above, I do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the order impugned in this writ petition warranting interference. 7. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed.