S.N.SAHAY, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions and civil revision arise out of orders passed on application of Narendra Nath Srivastava for impleadment. As common questions arise, all the three cases are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) THE dispute relates to premises No. 194/12-13, Lakshman Prasad Road, Gola Ganj, in the city of Lucknow which was purchased by Smt. Mota Devi, by means of a sale-deed date 9th January, 1957, executed by Ram Nath, who was an uncle of the applicant Narendra Nath. After purchasing the said premises, Smt. Mota Devi instituted suits for arrears of rent and ejectment under U.P. Act 13 of 1972, against the tenants, who were in occupation of the premises. The tenants also applied under Section 30 of the Act for depositing rent. It was directed by the learned Munsif North, Lucknow by order dated 30th April, 1982 that the rent shall be kept in deposit for the rightful claimant. In the above mentioned circumstances the application for impleadment was moved by Narendra Nath Srivastava on the ground that the disputed premises are ancestral property and Shri Shiv Prasanna Nath, who was common ancestor, was the original owner of the said premises. He had three sons, Krishna Dayal, Onkar Nath and Ram Nath and the applicant, who is the son of Onkar Nath, has acquired an interest by birth in the said premises. The applicant asserted that he should also be made a party as he is a co-owner of the disputed property. The application was contested by Smt. Mota Devi who has traversed the allegations made by the applicant and has stated that she is the sole owner and landlady of the disputed premises. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that Narendra Nath Srivastava has also filed a suit No. 163 of 1980, against Smt. Mota Devi and others for declaration of title in the Court of Civil Judge, Mohan Lal Ganj, Lucknow.
(3.) THE application for impleadment has been allowed in S.C.C. Suit No. 57 of 1986, by the learned IX Additional District Judge, Lucknow by order dated 18th September, 1986. He has observed that the applicant claims himself to be a coparcener and if he proves himself to be a coparcener, he shall have right to claim the money deposited by the defendant by way of rent of the property in dispute. He has taken the view that in order to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to decide the dispute between the parties finally and effectively, it is just and proper to allow impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. Against the above order, Smt. Mota Devi has filed Civil Revision No. 187 of 1986.;