Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. - (1.) AN application for amendment to implead the husband of the deceased tenant by the daughters was rejected both by the Prescribed Authority by an order dated 9th August 1989 and in revision by the learned District Judge, by an order dated 13th December, 1990. These orders have been challenged in the present petition on behalf of one of the daughters of the deceased tenant Smt. Kaushalya Devi. The facts of the present case are that the respondent No. 3 Damodar Dass Modi filed a suit against the petitioner as also against the respondent No. 4, being suit No. 63 of 1986 for the relief of ejectment and arrears of rent. The shop in dispute was in the tenancy of Smt. Kaushalya devi, wife of Ganga Prasad. Both the courts have held that Ganga Prasad was never the tenant of the disputed premises and it was only Smt. Kaushalya Devi, who was paying rent and there was privity of contract between the landlord and Smt. Kaushalya Devi. The suit was proceeding with full knowledge of Ganga Prasad, who, at no stage, came forward to lay his claim. The amendment which was sought by the petitioner was only to delay the proceedings in the suit. It has also come on record that the where about of Ganga Prasad, husband of Smt. Kaushalya Devi, are not known.
(2.) I have carefully perused the entire petition and in my opinion, the orders of the court below do not suffer from any illegality or error of jurisdiction. Moreover it is surprising that Ganga Prasad has not so far filed any application for the impleadment. Since the aggrieved person has not come forward to lay his claim, if any, the relief sought by the petitioner that the suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties, is misconceived. In this view of the matter, the findings of the court below that the present proceedings have been initiated only to delay the hearing of the suit, appears to be correct. Since the aggrieved party has not come forward to lay his claim, the present petition on behalf of other heirs, does not appear to be bona fide and maintainable. The amendment application has been rightly rejected by the courts below. The petition is devoid of merits and is to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.;