SUDHIR NARAIN,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.1993 passed by Special Judge, Jaunpur-respondent No. 1 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for filing objections and adducing the evidence in appeal.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the landlord filed an application for release of the shop in dispute under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') on the allegation that the shop in dispute is in a dilapidated condition and required demolition and new construction and after its reconstruction, it is needed to establish his son in business. The application was filed against the tenant Shambhu Nath and heirs of Santu Ram and Ram Kadam. Mirza Mohammad Qamil Beg was the landlord of the disputed shop and it was given on rent to Santu Ram and his two sons - Shambhu Nath and Ram Kadam. They started carrying on the business in the name of firm M/s. Ram Kadam Shambhu Nath. In the application filed by the landlord, the petitioner was impleaded as opposite-party No. 7. He was then minor and was shown under the guardianship of his elder brother Hari Narain. A written statement purporting to be on behalf of all the opposite-parties was filed. A true copy of the written statement has been annexed as Annexure Rs.2' to this petition. Both the parties led evidence in the case.
(3.) THE prescribed Authority, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the disputed premises was in a dilapidated condition and required demolition and reconstruction. He further found that the need of the landlord to establish his son in business was bona fide. He allowed the application by his order dated 5.3.1987. Shambhu Nath, one of the opposite-parties, filed appeal No. 2 of 1987 before the Special Judge against the order of the prescribed Authority. In the said appeal he impleaded the landlord and other co-tenants as proforma respondents.;