A.B.Srivastava - (1.) LEARNED counsel for the writ petition has been heard.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing an order dated 4-6-1993 of the R.C. and E.O. Kanpur Nagar allowing the respondent No. 2 to be impleaded as landlord-applicant to the proceeding under section 16 (5) of Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Act). The respondent no. 3 Kunti Devi obtained an ejectment decree against one Suresh Chandra the tenant of House No. 107/173 Jawahar Nagar, Kanpur, While the execution proceedings were pending on account of objection under section 47 CrPC on an application for allotment moved by the petitioner vacancy was declared by the R.C. and: E O. and the premises allotted to the petitioner on 7-10-1991. The same was challenged by the respondent no. 3 by means of an application under section 16 (5) of the Act. During the pendency of the said proceedings the respondent No, 3 transferred the house in question to the respondent no, 2 on whose application for impleadment order dated 7-6-1993 was passed The subsequent applications of the petitioner-tenant to rescind the said orders were also rejected. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is than the order of impleadment is against law in so far as there is no provision for substitution in the Aci or the Rules and the only course open to the R.C. and E.O. was to abate the proceedings in view of transfer of the building by the original landlord. This contention, however, has no force. The proceeding before the R.C. and E.O. was for review of the order of allotment alleged to have been made behind the back of the landlord and without seving notice in accordance with law. Such a proceeding would not abate eithe- on the death of the landlord or transfer in favour of another person. The cause of action for review on the grounds advanced by the original landlord will survive to his successor. The provisions of section 34 (1) (g) read with Rule 22 (d) and (f) take care of such a situation. The aforesaid provisions of Rule 22 clearly lay down that the District Magistrate, the Prescribed Authority or the appellate or revisiona! authority shall have the powers of a ciivil court to allow amendment, besides the inherent powers under section 151 of the CPC. The power of amendment under Rule 17 of Order 6 of the CPC is wide enough to cover amendment permiting joinder of a party who acquired interest in the property in question during pendency of a suit or proceeding under section 16 (5) of the Act. In any case such an impleadment could be allowed in exercise of the powers under section 151 CPC for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
(3.) IN Mohan Singh Bedi v. Phool Chandra, ARC 1982 p. 421, the question involved related to the scope of substitution in proceedings under sections 16 and 21, for release in favour of landlord, for personal occupation. It was in this context that the proceeding was held to have abated on the transfer of property by the landlord. IN Uma Shanker Pathak v. Additional District Judge, Kanpur, 1990 (1) ARC 201, also the proceedings related to release of accommodation in favour of the landlords under section 16 (1) (b) of she Act and not to review under section 16 (5) as in the instant case. The principles laid down in these cases thus are not applicable to the present case. Then in this case the respondent no. 2 besides applying for being brought on the record as a transferee landlord has also moved a fresh application dated 29 10 1993 (Annexure 12 to the petition), under section 16 (5) of the Act for selting aside the order of allotment on similar grounds as raised by his predecessor in title. Thus also R.C. and E.O. is required to decide the question relating to review under section 16 (5) on merits.;