S.K.Mukerjee, J. - (1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that Mohammad Arif made an application for impleading him as a party on the ground that he was also a co -tenant in the accommodation in dispute. This application was supported by an affidavit. The application was made in a proceeding under Section 21(2)(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Ultimately the Prescribed Authority rejected the application. Hence this petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that this writ petition is devoid of merit. In case, an order of release is ultimately passed in respect of the accommodation, in which Mohammad Arif claims to be also a co -tenant and in case he feels, aggrieved by the final order, he may have a right to file an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 runs as under: Any person aggrieved by an order under Section 21 or Section 24 may within 30 days from the date of order prefer an appeal against it to the District Judge, and in other respects, the provisions of Section 10 shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to such appeal.
(2.) A reading of the above provision would make it clear that any person aggrieved by an order passed under Section 21(1)(a), has a right of filling an appeal under Section 22. Section 22 of the aforesaid Act does not state that any party aggrieved by an order under Section 21 of the aforesaid Act, is only entitled to file an appeal. The word 'any person aggrieved' is significant. It means that a person, who is affected or is aggrieved by an order passed under Section 21 of the aforesaid Act shall have a right to file an appeal although he may not be a party to the proceedings. With the above observations, this petition is dismissed.;