N. L. Ganguly, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a tenant in a portion of a house and respondent no. 3 is also a tenant who is living in another portion of the house as tenant. THE landlord for the petitioner and the respondent no 3 are one and the same person. An application under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as THE Act', was filed by the landlord for the release of both the accommodations in question on the ground of bonafide and personal need.
(2.) IN the proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, the petitioner- tenant by an application raised two grounds of objection, firstly that the suit filed by the landlord is abated for non-joinder of necessary parties. As such, it was bad in law. Secondly it was objected that one single suit was filed against the petitioner for the release under the Act, which was also illegal as mis-joinder of parties. The petitioner has erroneously used the word 'suit' in the present writ petition referring to case under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. It would not be a suit but an application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order (Annexure 4) passed by the Prescribed Authority is illegal, unwarranted liable to be quashed. It was also submitted that the learned Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge has committed a manifest error of law in dismissing the application of the petitioner without catting for a counter affidavit or objection from the landlord. In the application of the petitioner, it was stated that the house in question belongs to Mool Chand. His sons and daughter are also co-owners. They are necessary parties in the case. Since they have not been impleaded, the case cannot be proceeded on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, secondly one release application against the two tenants of the same house is said to be illegal for mis-joinder of necessary parties. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 rejected this application of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that this application was misconceived moved after about 9 years of the filing of the application itself, apparently for delaying the proceedings for release. The learned Civil Judge/Prescribed Authority in my opinion was perfectly justified in rejecting the application of the tenant-petitioner. The application filed by the tenant was highly belated which shows that it was simply to delay the proceedings further, It is astonishing that nine years have passed and the release application could not be decided even after nine years. The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure do not apply as it is in proceedings under U. P. Act 13 of 1972. Section 34 of the Act incorporates the provisions of Civil Procedure Code in principle for proceeding and deciding the cases under the Act The petitioner is wrong in assuming the proceedings under section 21 of the Act as a suit to attract the provision of non -joinder. The proceedings under section 21 has been initiated by the landlord. The landlord under the Act is defined i e. the person who Is receiving the rent from the tenant is landlord within the meaning of the Act. The petitioner has not shown by any cogent evidence that besides the contesting opposite party, there are other persons, who were also receiving rent from the petitioner. Thus, there may be co-owners or co-sharers of the property but for the basis of proceedings . under this Act, the landlord as defined in the Act is fully competent to initiate and proceed with the case under the Act. The learned counsel for : the petitioner submitted that joint petition against the two tenants of the same premises is illegal. The submission is wholly misconceived. The cause of action for the release of both the portions of the same house arose at one and the same time. Thus, one application under section 21 of the Act by the landlord against the two occupants of the same building can easily proceed. It rather is more convenient and for the interest of justice, the Court shall have the entire picture of the case about the need of the landlord. It would be convenient for the Court to apply Rule 16 of the Act while finally appreciating the evidence of the case deciding the matter. The submission raised by the petitioner at a highly belated stage and on two technical ground is misconceived, liable to be repelled. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that there was any prejudice caused to the petitioner in the proceedings in which two tenants in the same accommodation are parties and common landlord's need for release was being considered. The decision in Kallu v. IX Addl. District Judge, Kanpur, 1982 ARC 61, is helpful in appreciating the facts of the present case. In the said reported case two cases for release by landlord against the two tenants one on the ground floor and tie other on the first floor was consolidated. The learned Single Judge held that no prejudice was caused in the said case, hence interference was declined. A perusal of said Rule 22 (u) shows that consolidation of cases as it was done in the said case is permissible.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I am of the view that the present writ petition is misconceived, appears to have been filed to delay the proceedings pending in the court below. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed.;