- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed by Anil Kumar Singh challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 29.5.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Prescribed Authority, Aligarh in P.A. No. 26 of 2005 (Raj Kumar Singh v. Anil Singh and others); and Judgment and order dated 30.4.2010 passed by District Judge, Aligarh in U.P.U.B. Appeal No. 02 of 2008 (Anil Kumar Singh v. Raj Kumar Singh), praying for quashing of the aforesaid judgments, appended as Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition.
(2.) The aforesaid orders have been challenged on the ground that the Courts below have not considered the procession of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment), Act 2005 (30 of 2005), that wife of the tenant/petitioner- Anil Kumar Singh is the coparcener in the disputed property/accommodation by operation of law and since she is residing in the property in dispute along with the petitioner who is her husband, the application of the landlord/respondent No. 3 was bad for nonjoinder of necessary party and was not maintainable under section 21(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972.
(3.) It is also submitted that the landlord who is her brother had collusively obtained ex parte decree behind back of his sister who is tenant wife of the petitioner. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in this regard wife of the petitioner had also applied for impleadment as opposite party in the aforesaid case before the prescribed authority, but her application was illegally rejected.;