- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22-12-1993 passed by the Prescribed Authority rejecting the objection of the petitioner filed by him under Section 23 of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ).
(2.) THE facts in brief are that respondent No. 2 purchased building in dispute bearing Municipal No. 88/54 Prem Nagar, Kanpur on 29-5-1986. He filed an ap plication for release against Smt. Shahnaz Begum, widow of Sri Mohammad Qayyum, respondent No. 3, for release of the disputed accommodation under Sec tion 21 (1) (a) of the Act in the year 1992 on the allegation that Mohammad Qayyum, husband of respondent No. 3, was tenant of the premises in question. After his death respondent No. 3 was paying the rent. THE accommodation in ques tion was required for his personal need. His family consists of six members and he is residing in House No. 99/170, Nala Road, Kanpur wherein he has only two rooms which is hardly sufficient for his residential purposes and for children who are studying in schools. The application was contested by respondent No. 3 and it was alleged that the need of the landlord was not bona fide. Later on a compromise application was filed by respondent No. 3 on 3rd February, 1992 before the Prescribed Authority. In the application she admitted that the landlord bona fide requires the accommoda tion in question. The Prescribed Authority, considering the averments of the landlord in his application and the fact stated by respondent No. 3 in the compromise application, allowed the application for release by his order dated 14-2-1992 and granted two months time to vacate the accommodation in question. Respondent No. 3 did not vacate the accommodation within the time granted by the Prescribed Authority. Respondent No. 2 filed an application for enforcement of the order dated 14-2-1992 under Section 23 of the Act. The petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 claiming themselves as sons of late Mohammad Qayyum and petitioner No. 7 claiming herself as his daughter, filed objection under Section 23 of the Act on the allegation that Mohammad Qayyum was tenant of the premises in question and they were not impleaded as parties in the application filed by respondent No. 3 under Section 21 of the Act and the said order cannot be enforced against them.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed reply to the said objection and it was stated that the mother of the petitioners informed him that the had got surrendered the tenancy of her children in her favour because the said children are living under her custody. The Prescribed Authority found that respondent No. 3 was in fact representing the interest of her minor children also in the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. The petitioners, even if they had not surrendered the tenancy, their status was that of a joint tenants and they were fully represented by their mother, respondent No. 3, in the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. The order passed in the said proceedings was binding upon them. The objection of the petitioners was rejected on 22-12-1993 which is under challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that admittedly Mohammad Qayyum was tenant of the premises in question and after his. death his widow, sons and daughter inherited the tenancy rights. They became co-tenants and were neces sary parties to be impleaded in the application under Section 21 of the Act filed by respondent No. 3 but except respondent No. 3 none of the petitioners, who were sons and daughter of Mohammad Qayyum, were impleaded as party. The Prescribed Authority illegally relied upon the agreement dated 2-4-1991 alleged to have been executed by Mohammad Parvez and Mohammad Suhail, petitioners Nos. land 2.;