- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vishnu Gupta for the caveator. This petition is directed against an order dated 27th of January, 2010 by which an impleadment application filed by the petitioners in the pending rent appeal has been dismissed.
(2.) The respondent-landlords filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 with the allegation that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents became a tenant of the disputed premises through a registered rent deed dated 16th April, 1957 and the landlords claimed the premises for its personal use and occupation. The tenant admitted the aforesaid fact of tenancy in his written statement whereafter the premises was released in favour of the landlord after contest. The tenant preferred an appeal and during its pending, the petitioners claiming to be its owner filed an impleadment application claiming that they were the owners and landlords. The Courts below after considering the evidence on record found that the petitioners were not necessary parties and for its title, they have already instituted a suit which is also pending.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the authority below has to decide the claim of the petitioners as to whether they were the landlords or not and in support of this claim, he has relied upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Ram Nath Mishra v. Prescribed Authority,1984 4 ARC 227, and a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Vijay Lata Sharma v. Raj Pal, 2004 56 AllLR 695. Having perused the judgments and the record, it is apparent that the petitioners claim to be owner of the premises for which a suit is already pending. It is also admitted to the parties that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents became tenant of the disputed premises and so far as the relationship of the landlord-tenant is concerned, there was no necessity for hearing the petitioner whose suit is still pending.;