- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgments and orders dated 17-8-93 and 20-8-93 (Annexures 6 and 7) passed by the X Addl. District Judge, Meerut. The petitioner Manoj Kumar submitted application for being impleaded as a party in an appeal filed by the Waqf Azizi Meerut through Shafeeque Ahmad Khan, Mutwalli v. Rakesh Kumar. The petitioner Manoj Kumar stated in the application that he is interested in the case and appeal pending in respect of Case No. 63 of 1992 in the matter of allotment. The petitioner pleaded that his application for allotment was filed and has not so far been decided. It was submitted that unless his affidavit filed in the proceedings are not decided, it would not be legal to decide the application under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner is a third party. He was not impleaded as an opposite party in the appeal before the Addl. District Judge. The petitioner had moved an application before the Prescribed Authority on 22-4-1993 which was rejected. An application under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, here-in-after referred to as 'The Act', has been filed for release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord. The legal position is not in dispute as held in (Full Bench) Talim Hussain and another v. I Addl. District Judge, Nainital and others, 1986 AllLJ 845where it was held that a prospective allottee has no such right even after deletion of original Rule 13(4) (1980 Alla. RentCases 548 was over-ruled). The right of a prospective allottee to have his application considered arises only after the rejection of the landlord's application under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act. A fortioir the prospective allottee comes into the picture only after the dismissal of the landlord's application for release. Similarly, in Sushila Dwivedi v. Ashok Kumar Sahai & another, 1990 AllLJ 204 it was held that in proceedings for release a prospective allottee has no right to be heard in opposition.
(2.) The application for the petitioner was rejected for impleadment by the competent authority, and the application before the appellate court also was rejected. The appellant against the order dated 22-4-93 by which the application under Section 21(1) of the Act was dismissed, was heard and decided by the judgment dated 20-8-93 (Annexure 7) which is also challenged in the present writ petition. The facts of the said case are that in the case No. 292 of 1992 Waqf Azizi v. Rakesh Kumar, an ex-parte order dated 22-4-93 was passed on the application under Section 21(1) of the Act No. 13 of 1972. The application under Section 21(1) was rejected. It was stated that the Waqf Alul Allaud known as Waqf Azizi is a Waqf property namely No. 131 and 133 and 134 Khairnagar Bazar, Meerut. The disputed accommodation consists of one hall, bearing Municipal No. 101 to 105, Khairnagar, Bazar and 126 to 134. It was said that the opposite party was tenant in house No. 131 and is tenant of shop No. 133 and 134. This accommodation was allotted in favour of one Rakesh Kumar by order dated 6-8-70. The Mutwalli of the waqf has become old and suffering from weak eye sight where the present Mutwalli was working in his place. Since after the death of Abdul Rashid, he claimed to be the sole Mutwalli of the accommodation in question. The three allottees of the premises belonging to the Trust are continuing in the accommodation. It was said that after the death of Indrajit Singh, there was no heir to succeed his tenancy. The other allottee Jai Prakash, who was doing business in partnership has left the accommodation and only Rakesh Kumar is doing the business in the building in question. He stated to have paid rent to Mutwalli and receipts were issued since February 1987 in his name. It appears that premises No. 131/134 is a Commercial building. Rakesh Kumar was running a business of Finance Company in the said premises. It was published in the news paper 'Amar Ujala' dated 18-10-92 with Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Managing Director and his father Hukam Chand Gupta, Chairman, Salwin Finance Co. have left the accommodation in question on 14-10-92. After receiving the said information in the news paper, Rakesh Kumar went to the house shop in question and found that it was locked. After waiting for some time, when the petitioner was satisfied that the tenant has left the place and he is not likely to come back, moved an application before the Prescribed Authority for declaring the vacancy. It was submitted before him that without giving opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and non-impleadment of the petitioner, is likely to prejudice the case of the petitioner.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that refusal to implead the petitioner as a party in a proceedings for release and order passed in appeal Ex-parte without impleading the petitioner as a party in the appeal, his valuable rights have been affected. The position and status of the petitioner remains the same i.e., he is a prospective allottee. In view of decision in 1986 , a petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper and he has no locus-standi to claim the impleadment. The Full Bench decision is binding.;