- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari-This writ petition arises out of order dated 19.10.2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bijnor (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in S.C.C.R. No. 36 of 2004.
(2.) THE aforesaid revision was filed against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.2004, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bijnor in S.C.C. Suit No. 40 of 1995, Smt. Malti Devi and others v. Ram Kumar and others by which the suit was decreed and the defendants were directed to vacate the shop, in dispute, within a period of one month from the date of decree and to pay Rs. 6,000 towards arrears of rent as well as compensation at the rate of Rs. 166.66P per month from the date of institution of suit till the date of delivery of possession. The facts of the case, as culled out from record are that the plaintiff-respondents had filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act No. XIII of 1972') against Sri Ram Kumar. It appears that the plaintiff-respondents in S.C.C. Suit against Sri Ram Kumar and others had alleged that Sri Ram Kumar alone was the tenant of the property, in dispute, on yearly rent of Rs. 2,000. They alleged that Sri Ram Kumar had not paid rent from May, 1991 to April, 1995, hence they prayed for rent, mesne profit and ejectment of the tenant from the property, in dispute.
(3.) SMT. Sadhna Agarwal-petitioner No. 1 filed an impleadment application in the suit on the ground that her husband late Sri Satyendra Kumar Agarwal was also a tenant alongwith Sri Ram Kumar as he was partner of the partnership firm 'M/s. Ram Kumar and Satyendra Kumar' which was doing business in the tenanted portion. It also appears from record that vide judgment and order dated 20.12.1993, the Special Judge/ Additional District Judge, Bijnor rejected the application moved by the petitioner for being impleaded as co-appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 68 of 1991, Ram Kumar v. Smt. Malti Devi and others. The said appeal was filed by Sri Ram Kumar under Section 22 of the Act No. XIII of 1972 against the judgment and order of release dated 17.7.1991, passed by the prescribed authority in the case under Section 21 of the Act No. XIII of 1972. The applicant sought impleadment on the ground that the shop, in dispute, was in the tenancy of firm 'M/s. Ram Kumar and Satyendra Kumar' and, after the death of Sri Satyendra Kumar, she succeeded the tenancy from her deceased husband.;