Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 908 (ALL)

Gopal Chand Agarwal v. Radhey Narain Agarwal

2014-03-21

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.: - Heard Shri Mahesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Akash Dikshit, who appears for the contesting respondent no. 1, the landlord. 2. This writ petition arises out of an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting and Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 filed by the contesting respondent for release of shop nos. 685 and 686 on the ground of personal need of the contesting respondent no. 1. 3. During the pendency of the case, an impleadment application, paper no: 55, filed on behalf of the petitioners was rejected by the prescribed authority by the order dated 31.1.2013, impugned in this petition. 4. The impleadment application was filed by the petitioners alleging therein that the accommodation in dispute was let out in 1968 to Shri Laxmi Chandra Agarwal, who died on 02.09.1983 leaving behind his widow, two sons and six daughters. It is the case of the petitioners that Badri Prasad Agarwal, son-in-law of Laxmi Chandra Agarwal and husband of Smt. Ram Dulari, was also a partner in the partnership business run from the accommodation in dispute. The release application was filed without impleading either the widow or the daughters of Laxmi Chandra Agarwal. It was further stated that the mother of the petitioners', namely Smt. Dulari, daughter of Laxmi Chandra Agarwal, died on 08.06.2011. She was a necessary party but had not been impleaded and hence the impleadment application by her heirs. 5. The application for impleadment aforesaid was objected to by the landlord-respondent no. 1 on the ground that there was no averment made in the impleadment application that the petitioner-applicants were also carrying on business from the shop in dispute and the application had been filed only with an intention to delay the disposal of the release application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the accommodation in question was a commercial accommodation, all the heirs of the deceased original tenant were entitled to be impleaded in the proceedings and the court below has committed manifest illegality in rejecting the impleadment application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the accommodation in question was a commercial accommodation, all the heirs of the deceased original tenant were entitled to be impleaded in the proceedings and the court below has committed manifest illegality in rejecting the impleadment application. In support of his contention that all the heirs of the deceased-tenant would be joint tenants and therefore liable to be impleaded to enable them to contest the release application, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of Harish Tandon vs. Additional District Magistrate (Allahabad)U.P. and Others reported in 1995 (1) SCC 537 : 1995(1) ARC 221. 7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the impleadment application as also the instant writ petition have been filed only with the object of delaying the disposal of the release application. He submits that the petitioners have no right to be impleaded and the court below has rightly rejected their impleadment application for cogent reasons and therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 9. It emerges from a perusal of the record that the release application was filed in the year 1987 against the two sons of the original tenant, late Laxmi Chandra Agarwal who contested the same by filing their written statements stating therein that all the heirs of Laxmi Chandra Agarwal have not been impleaded in the proceedings. As a consequence thereof, it appears that an impleadment/amendment application was filed by the landlord seeking impleadment of all the heirs of the Laxmi Chandra Agarwal as opposite parties in the case before the prescribed authority. This application was duly allowed. The order allowing the amendment/impleadment application was challenged by the two sons of Laxmi Chandra Agarwal, by means of writ petition Rent Control no. 146 of 1993. This petition was allowed by the order dated 04.02.2011 and the order impugned therein, dated 26.8.1993, whereby the impleadment/amendment application had been allowed, was set aside. It is thereafter that the impleadment application in question has been filed before the court below. 10. The prescribed authority, in the impugned order dated 31.1.2013, has recorded that since the accommodation in dispute was a commercial accommodation, all the heirs of the Luxmi Chand Agrawal would be joint tenants therein. It is thereafter that the impleadment application in question has been filed before the court below. 10. The prescribed authority, in the impugned order dated 31.1.2013, has recorded that since the accommodation in dispute was a commercial accommodation, all the heirs of the Luxmi Chand Agrawal would be joint tenants therein. The Prescribed Authority has, relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court, held that a decree or order of eviction passed against some of the joint tenants without impleading the other joint tenants is a valid order which will operate against all the joint tenants irrespective of whether they were party to the proceedings or not. He has further recorded that the matter is pending consideration since 1987 and it has not been stated anywhere in the impleadment application that the accommodation in dispute was let out to the partnership firm and also that no impleadment application was filed by the mother of the applicants even though she was admittedly one of the joint tenants on the death of her father Laxmi Chandra Agarwal. 11. The reasoning given by the court below for rejecting the impleadment application appears to be sound. There is no dearth of decisions which hold that the eviction order passed against some of the joint tenants is binding even upon the other joint tenants who are not impleaded as parties of the proceedings, reference 1 .Smt. Anju Sharma vs. Sri Suresh Chand Jain and Others AIR (1993) All 109: 1993(1) ARC 291 2.Smt. Usha Rani vs. Prescribed Authority and Others 1998 (2) ARC 543: 1998 (3) AWC 2331 3. Mitrasen Ashok Kumar and Others vs. Ram Niwas 2006 (1) A WC 391: 2005 (3) ARC 755 12. It is further relevant to record that even though the proceedings were pending since the year 1987, the mother of the applicants never sought her impleadment in the proceedings as a joint tenant during her life time. It is also admitted on record that two sons of Laxmi Chandra Agarwal, who as parties since inception of the case in the court below, have filed their written statement and are contesting the proceedings. It can therefore be safely assumed under the circumstances that the mother of the applicants was fully satisfied with the contest put forth by her brothers and therefore acquiesced to the defence put up by them. 13. It can therefore be safely assumed under the circumstances that the mother of the applicants was fully satisfied with the contest put forth by her brothers and therefore acquiesced to the defence put up by them. 13. From the facts and circumstances of the case there appears to be force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the object of filing the impleadment application as also the instant writ petition is only to delay the disposal of the release application itself which has remained pending since 1987 i.e. for more than 26 years. This is despite a direction of this Court dated 13.1.2012 in Misc. Single No. 6005 of 2011 Radhey Narain Agarwal vs. Prescribed Authority/ Additional Civil Judge, Court No. 2 wherein this Court had directed that the P.A. Case No. 128 of 1987 Radhey Narain Agarwal vs. Satish Chandra and another pending before the prescribed authority be disposed of expeditiously. Accordingly and for the reasons noted above, I see no justification to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 13.1.2013 rejecting the impleadment application of the petitioners. The instant writ petition is not bona fide, it lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs which I quantify at Rs. 5.000/-. The costs shall be paid by the petitioners to the respondent no. 1 within a period of one month from the date of this order. Petition dismissed.