Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THE petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12 -9 -1991 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut, rejecting the application of the petitioner for impleadment and the order dated 31 -10 -91 passed by respondent No. 1 affirming the said order in revision. The facts, in brief, are that Kishan Chand had filed an application for release of Shop No. 2, situate at Jubliganj Rajban Bazar, Meerut Cantt. under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Ram Avtar, respondent No. 4, stating that he was the tenant of the shop in question and he required it for personal need. The said application was contested by respondent No. 4 stating that he was not tenant of the shop in question. He set up the title in favour of his father and uncle. The Prescribed Authority recorded a finding against him and allowed the application under Section 21 of the Act filed by Kishan Chand. Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the District Judge. The appeal was dismissed and thereafter respondent No. 4 filed Writ Petition No. 3163 of 1986 in this Court. The writ petition was admitted and the operation of the order of the Prescribed Authority has been stayed.
(2.) KISHAN Chand also filed Suit No. 7 of 1984 in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Meerut for arrears of rent and ejectment against respondent No. 4. The suit remained pending. Kishan Chand died during the pendency of suit and he was substituted by his heirs who are respondents 3(a) to 3(k) in this writ petition. On 30th April, 1991, respondent No. 4, who was impleaded as a defendant in the suit, filed written statement. It was stated by him that his father Chunni Lal and uncle Shri Ram Bansal were owners of the property and he was not tenant of the shop in question. There was no relationship between him and the plaintiff. The disputed shop is in occupation of Jiyalal who is paying rent to Sri Shri Ram Bansal who is uncle of the defendant. After filing the said written statement, the petitioner moved an application for impleadment before the Judge Small Causes Court on 9th July, 1992. The application was supported with an affidavit. It was stated by him that he had no knowledge of the suit prior to 3rd July, 1992. He is in occupation of the shop as a tenant of Shri Ram Bansal who is uncle of the defendant and he should be impleaded in the suit. This application was opposed by the plaintiff. The Judge Small Causes Court rejected the said application by order dated 12th September, 1991, holding that the petitioner was neither necessary nor proper party in the suit. This order has been affirmed by respondent No. 1 in revision.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was in actual occupation of the shop as tenant of one Shri Ram Bansal and the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against respondent No. 4 who is in collusion with the plaintiff and in case any ejectment decree is passed, that would affect his rights as on the basis of said decree he may be ejected from the shop in question.;