- (1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner tenant has sought quashing of an order dated 21-7-1994 of the Addl. District Judge Kanpur Nagar rejecting the prayer of the respondent No. 3 for impleadment and order dated 26-11-1994 dismis sing the petitioner's appeal under Section 22 of Act 13 of 1972.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the caveator respondent No. 2 have been heard. Release of the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner was sought on the ground of personal need of the respondent No. 2 claiming to be co-owner and co-landlord, to start his own business. The same was contested but was allowed by the prescribed authority. The petitioner preferred appeal. During the appeal the respondent No. 3 which is the brother of the respondent No. 2 filed an application for impleadment claiming to be the sole owner landlord and also stating that title suit is pending between parties. The same was rejected.
(3.) THE learned Addl. District Judge also dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The main contention of the petitioner in this case is that the respon dent No. 3 being the sole landlord was a necessary party and the release application without impleading him was not maintainable. This contention is based on the plea that the premises in question was exclusively purchased by the respondent No. 3 and he alone was paid the rent. The said sale-deed has howover, not been filed. The rent receipts filed (Annexure-4) do not bear the signature of the respondent No. 3. Out of the assessment records, the name of petitioners' father is recorded in the years 1953 to 1938 as tenant of premises No. 124 recorded as property of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and their father and mother.;