V.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a mention that the matter being extremely urgent be taken up today. Accordingly 24 hours notice is exempted and the t is taken up.
(2.) Heard Sri Rajesh Tandon learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Som Narain Mishra for the petitioner, Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pankaj Bhatia for respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2.
(3.) One Prabhu Dayal Gaur was tenant of the shop in dispute. The petitioner and respondent No.3 are sons of late Prabhu Dayal Gaur. The respondent No. 4 is landlady of the shop in dispute. After the death of Prabhu Dayal his both sons, namely, Sudhakar Gaur and Prabhakar Gaur inherited the tenancy as joint tenants. The landlord field a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against one of the joint tenants Sudhakar Gaur. The Prescribed Authority found that the need of the landlord was bonafide and genuine and the landlord would suffer greater hardship than that of the tenant and allowed the release application. Sri Sudhakar Gaur filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed. He filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33081 of 1999. It was strongly urged before this Court that the shop was occupied by Prabhakar Gaur and he has not been made party to the proceedings. This Court recorded a finding that Prabhakar Gaur was doing pairvi in the case and was carrying on the business in the shop in dispute and he was affected by the release order. He also signed the order sheet in the Court below and remained present and contested the matter and dismissed the writ petition Petitioner on 15.5.2001. No doubt Prabhakar Gaur was not a party to the proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) which went on only against Sri Sudhakar Gaur, however, after the dismissal of the writ petition by this Court Sri Prabhakar Gaur filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed on 8.3. 2002 and the appeal was sent to the District Judge for admission. The District Judge has dismissed the appeal summarily by order dated 27.8.2002.;