- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorariquashing the order dated 23-11-1996 whereby the Prescribed Authority under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, allowed the amendment/impleadment application filed by respondent No. 3 and the order dated 4-12-1997 whereby the revisional authority dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner as not maintainable.
(2.) THE relevant facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for releasing the shops in dispute in which the petitioner has been running his business, on the ground of personal bona fideneed. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed a written statement controverting and denying the facts stated in the release application. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for amendment in the written statement pleading that respondent No. 3 was not the landlord/owner of the shops in dispute but respondent No. 4, father of respondent No. 3, was the owner/landlord of the shops in dispute. THE amendment application filed by the petitioner, inspite of objection was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. THEreafter, respondent No. 3 filed an application dated 10-10-1996 for permission to implead respondent No. 4 as applicant No. 2 in the release application. THE said application was objected to and opposed by the petitioner. However, after hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority allowed the application filed by respondent No. 3 and permitted respondent No. 4 to be impleaded as a party by its judgment and order dated 23-11-1996. According to the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 4, under the facts and circumstances of the case, was necessary and proper party. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Court below, i. e. ,v Additional District Judge, under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. Respondents No. 3 and 4 before the Court below raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision. It was contended that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure had no application to the proceedings under the Act. Consequently, revision filed by the petitioner under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, against the order of the Prescribed Authority was legally not maintainable. In support of their submissions, reliance was placed by the contesting respondents upon the decisions in Smt. Shakuntala Deviv. Additional District Judge, Meerut,reported in 1981 ARC 262 and Smt. Surjeet Kaurv. Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr,reported in 1983 (2) AIR 202. THE Court below after hearing the parties upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the revision as not maintainable by its judgment and order dated 4-12-1997. Hence, the present petition. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Prescribed Authority by allowing the amendment/impleadment application permitted respondent No. 3 to fill up the lacuna in the case, which was legally not permissible. He has, thus, acted illegally and in excess of its jurisdiction in allowing the application. It was also urged that the revision filed by the petitioner was legally maintainable. The Court below has erred in law in dismissing the same as not maintainable. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that respondent No. 4 was necessary or at least proper party in view of the pleadings of the parties on record. The Prescribed Authority, therefore, did not commit any error of law or jurisdiction in permitting respondent No. 4 to be impleaded as one of the applicants in the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It was also urged that the Prescribed Authority had the discretion to implead any person as a party in the proceedings who, in its opinion, was a necessary or property party or whose presence was necessary for passing an effective order. Therefore, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority permitting respondent No. 4 to be impleaded was quite legal. It was also vehemently urged that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have no application to the proceedings under the Act, therefore, the revision filed by the petitioner under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, was legally not maintainable. The Court below was right in upholding the preliminary objection and in dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner as not maintainable. According to him, the writ petition has got no merit, the same was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. Admittedly, originally the application under Section 21 of the Act was filed by respondent No. 3. In the amended written statement the petitioner himself took the plea that respondent No. 4 was the landlord and owner of the shops in dispute and not respondent No. 3. After amendment of the written statement, plaintiff/applicant had the right to file replication as well as necessary application, if any, to meet the objection taken by way of amendment. Respondent No. 3 was, therefore, legally justified in making an application for impleadment of respondent No. 4 as one of the applicants to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Prescribed Authority had the jurisdiction to entertain and allow the application for amendment of the release application. It has also the jurisdiction to implead any person in the said proceedings who, in its opinion, was necessary or proper party or whose presence was necessary for passing effective orders. The Prescribed Authority, therefore, did not commit any error of law or jurisdiction in allowing the impleadment/amendment application. The submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, cannot be accepted. This Court has consistently taken the view that in the proceedings under the Act, the Code of Civil Procedure except as provided under Section 34 of the Act has got no application. In view of the aforesaid provision, the petitioner had no right to file a revision under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the amendment application. The revision filed by him was, thus, legally not maintainable The submissions made by learned Counsel for the respondent in this regard find support from the decisions referred to above. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. This petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, is discharged. Petition dismissed. .;