Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3905 (ALL)

Ankur Agrawal v. Learned Civil Judge Pilibhit

2016-12-02

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. -- Heard Shri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The writ petition arises out of a release application under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 filed by the respondent No.2 against the respondent No.3. 3. In these proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the Act, read with Rule 22 and Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, seeking impleadment as a opposite party. It was contended that Munna Lal, the original tenant of two shops,died leaving behind four sons namely Girish Chandra, Rakesh Kumar, Anil Kumar (respondent No.3) and one Suneel Kumar. The case ofthe petitioner that he is the son of Girish Chandra one of the sons of Munna Lal and upon his father death, the petitioner is in possession over the shop in question. 4. The respondent No.3 filed the release application, showing that the two shops in tenancy of Munna Lal had been emerged into one. It is stated that this stand taken by the Landlord respondent No.2 in collusion with the tenant shop No.3. It was alleged that the relationship between the petitioner and his uncle Anil Kumar is not cordial. 5. The Court below taking note of the fact that the release application was being listed for final hearing, at which stage the applications have been filed by the petitioner, rejected the impleadment application. It also observed that even if the allegations in the application filed by the petitioner were accepted, he was at best a joint tenant and that it is not necessary to implead each and every joint tenant. It has also been observed that in case the allegations made in the release application are found to be incorrect, the same would be to the determent of the the landlord himself. Since the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings and he alleges a separate tenancy, he would not be bound even if the release application is allowed. On the said reasoning the Court below rejected the impleadment application. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record including the impugned order I do not find any illegality therein. 7. The observations made in the impugned order are a sufficient safeguard of the interest of the petitioner, if any. 8. On the said reasoning the Court below rejected the impleadment application. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the record including the impugned order I do not find any illegality therein. 7. The observations made in the impugned order are a sufficient safeguard of the interest of the petitioner, if any. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any ground for interference. 9. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.