Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri C.S. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Sri Ram Singh on behalf of respondent No. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 8.9.2005 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the application for amendment has been rejected. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the application of the petitioner was for re -entry in the shop in dispute which was got released by the landlord for the purpose of starting business of his son. The aforesaid order was confirmed up to this Court and this Court vide order dated 25.7.2005 filed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition has given liberty to the tenant -petitioner to ask the landlord for return of the shop in question if the landlord did not start the business within six months from the date he got the possession of the shop in question. It is stated that after passing of the order by this Court the shop was handed over to the landlord on 30.11.2003 and the landlord did not start business within a period of six months. Consequently the petitioner moved an application for return of the shop. During pendency of the aforesaid application the landlord sold the shop to respondent No. 3. Consequently the said amendment application was moved before the prescribed authority which has been rejected by the impugned order.
(2.) A counter -affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 1 wherein he has stated that he had stared business in the shop in question within six months from the date the same was given in his possession therefore, it is contended that respondent No. 1 is not be liable to pay any damages nor the petitioner is entitled to an order of delivery of possession. The said contention is disputed by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties it is found that the subsequent purchaser namely Smt. Trapta Arora was a necessary party in the proceeding in as much as the tenant -petitioner has been given a right of re -entry on the landlord failing to start a business within six months. Since the subsequent purchaser is likely to be affected by any order of re -entry, if passed, therefore she was a necessary party and this Court vide order dated 23.9.2005 has already impleaded the subsequent purchaser as respondent No. 3 in this writ petition. In view of the aforesaid fact and since the application of the petitioner for re -entry in the shop has not been decided on merit as yet this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 8.9.2005 is quashed. The amendment application filed by the petitioner also stands allowed. The respondent No. 2 shall decide the application for re -entry in the shop filed by the petitioner on its merits in accordance with law and as directed by this Courts order dated 25.7.2005 passed -in the earlier Writ Petition No. 31464 of 2003. No order is passed as to costs.;