R.H.ZAIDI, J. - (1.) IN this case counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been filed by the parties. As desired by the parties, this petition was heard and is being disposed of finally at this stage.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.8.2000, contained in Annexure-4, passed by the respondent No. 1 in Rent Appeal No. 58 of 1994 rejecting the objection filed by the petitioners and for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 1 to substitute Madhuri Devi in place of Kamla Devi, deceased, as her heir legal representative in Rent Appeal No. 58 of 1994. It appears that the respondents No. 2 and 3 moved an application under the Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, for release of the shop in question. On receiving the notices from the Court of the Prescribed Authority, petitioners filed their written statement in the said case denying the claim of the respondents No. 2 and 3, asserting that need was neither genuine nor bonafide and that there was no question of suffering any hardship if their application for release was dismissed. The Prescribed Authority after going through the evidence on record, recorded findings on the questions of bonafide need and hardship against the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and dismissed the said application by the Judgment and order dated 23.3.1994. Challenging the validity of the said order, the respondent No. 2 and 3 filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal Smt. Kamla Devi, one of the appellants, died leaving behind Madhuri Devi (married daughter) as one of heirs besides others. The respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 34 (4) of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Act within the time prescribed under the law for substitution of the heirs. Against the said application, petitioners filed an objection to the effect that Madhuri Devi who was one of the heirs of Smt. Kamla Devi, was not sought to be impleaded as one of the appellants. The respondent No. 1 after hearing the parties rejected the objection raised by the petitioners by means of the order dated 31.8.2000. Hence, the present petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently urged that the building in question is a business premises, therefore, in relation thereto it was necessary to implead all the hires of the deceased. As one of the heirs, Smt. Madhuri Devi was not sought to be impleaded, the application was defective and the appeal as against her shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as against her became final. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, submitted that it was not necessary to implead Smt. Madhuri Devi as one of the appellants as she was married daughter and had no share in the tenancy right, if at all her status was that of a joint-tenant.;