Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) ORDERS passed on 20.11.2013 and 27.11.2013 in this writ petition are quoted below: Learned brief holder of learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri Surya Kant states that Shri Surya Kant has not come to the Court as he is not feeling well. However, learned Counsel for the landlords/respondents states that matter is urgent as landlord is residing in a tenanted accommodation and according to him petitioner was only caretaker appointed as such by the tenant and tenant has entered into compromise with the land lords/respondents and further this writ petition is directed only against the order rejecting the impleadment application. Learned Counsel for the tenant/respondent No. 2 is also not present and a mention has been made on his behalf that he has got fracture in his leg. List the case peremptorily in top five cases on 27.11.2013. On the said date case will not be adjourned on the illness slip or mention etc. Order date: -20.11.2013 Heard Shri Surya Kant, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prashant Singh Gaur, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. Prayer was made for adjournment on behalf of respondent No. 2. However, in view of the order dated 20.11.2013 the prayer was rejected. During arguments on enquiry from Court Shri Surya Kant, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the accommodation in dispute consisted of 5 rooms (according to learned Counsel for respondent, 7 rooms) and the rate of rent was Rs. 100/ - per month. However, Shri Surya Kant, learned Counsel, on enquiry from Court admitted that for last 20 years, particularly during the pendency of the writ petition no rent had been paid to the landlord. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also argued that in the counter -affidavit each and every allegation made in the writ petition was not denied. Judgment reserved. The interim order shall remain in operation until delivery of judgment. Order date: 27.11.2013 Landlord respondent No. 1 Ganesh Kumar Chaudhary filed release application under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. On the ground of bona fide need against the tenant Krishna Bihari Shukla, original opposite party No. 2, since deceased and survived by legal representatives in the form of P.A. Case No. 86 of 1985, Ganesh Shankar v. Krishna Bihari before prescribed authority/Civil Judge Senior Division Mohan Lal Ganj Lucknow. In the said case petitioner (Ajay Kumar Shukla) filed an application for impleadment claiming that he was also joint tenant alongwith Krishna Bihari Shukla, the only opposite party in the release application. The precise case was that Smt. Shanta Devi Vaidya W/o. Shri Krishna Bihari Shukla had taken the house on rent on behalf of joint Hindu family of which applicant petitioner was also member. A pedigree has been given in para. 6 of the writ petition. Petitioner is one of the four sons of Awadh Prasad Shukla who was son of Madhav Ram Shukla, real brother of Krishna Bihari Shukla, the sole opposite party in the release application. The impleadment application was rejected by the prescribed authority on 29.8.2005. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition.
(2.) INITIALLY on 21.9.2005 stay order was passed in this writ petition staying the proceedings before the P.A. But it was modified afterwards on 1.3.2006 and it was directed that release application be finally decided but petitioner should not be dispossessed if release application was allowed. Thereafter, original opposite party No. 2 Krishna Bihari Shukla, the sole opposite party in the release application entered into compromise with the landlord applicant (O.P. No. 1 in this writ petition) Ganesh Shankar Chaudhary and compromise was accepted by the prescribed authority on 29.4.2006. The compromise application had been filed on 25.3.2004. The compromise was also verified on 1.10.2005 by the Presiding Officer of the Court of prescribed authority. Through order dated 29.4.2006, release application was decided (allowed) in terms of the compromise, however, it was directed that Ajai Kumar Shukla, the petitioner of this writ petition should not be evicted in view of the stay order of the High Court. Merely because petitioner is one of the four grandsons of real brother of Krishna Bihari Shukla, it cannot be inferred that house was taken on rent by wife of Krishna Bihari Shukla on behalf of Joint Hindi family. The petitioner in his impleadment application contended that his grandfather Madhav Ram Shukla was the tenant, rate of rent was Rs. 100/ - per month and since 1985 he was paying rent to Chaudhari Girija Shankar attorney of the landlord without any receipt and that his relations with Krishna Bihari Shukla were not good.
(3.) THE landlord contended that late Smt. Shanta Devi Vaidya, wife of Krishna Bihari Shukla was the original tenant and after her death her husband Krishna Bihari Shukla became the tenant. (Petitioner Ajay Kumar had also contended that after the death of his real grandfather Mahav Ram Shukla rent was paid by Smt. Shanta Devi Vaidya). If house had been taken on rent by M.R. Shukla, after his death, either his son Awadh Prasad Shukla or his brother Krishna Bihari Shukla should have paid the rent. There was absolutely no occasion of payment of rent by Shanta Devi Vaidya, wife of Krishna Bihari Shukla. Landlord further contended that petitioner Ajay Kumar had been inducted by Krishna Bihari Shukla as sub -tenant.;