R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) The petitioners by means of this petition pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, dated 22.8.1996 and 1.12.1984 respectively and also for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to eject them from the shop in dispute on the basis of aforesaid orders.
(2.) Brief facts which are relevant for the purposes of disposal of present petition are that S.C.C. Suit No. 97 of 1979 was filed by the respondent No. 3 for ejectment of defendants (petitions No. 5, 6 and 7, Smt. Balvanti Devi and one Harish Chand, defendant No. 5), pleading that originally Sri Khem Chand was the tenant in the shop in dispute who died leaving the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 as his heirs and legal representatives. The said defendants have committed default in payment of rent and also sub-let the shop in dispute illegally to Harish Chandra, the defendant No. 5, their tenancy was terminated, they were, therefore, liable to eject from the shop in dispute.
(3.) The suit was contested by the aforesaid defendants mainly pleading that business of firm Roop Ki shore Rajendra Prasad which was being carried in the shop in dispute was a joint Hindu family business. Khem Chand was the KARTA of the joint Hindu family, Harish Chand, the defendant No. 5 has been working with him since 1970 without any let or hinderence by the plaintiff as the partner of the firm the suit was, thus, barred by acquiescence and estoppel. The plaintiff was not the sole owner/landlord of the shop in dispute. There were other heirs of Babu Lal , who were Co-owners of the said shop who were not impleaded. Notice served by the plaintiff under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was illegal inasmuch as no notice was given to Sri Jai Prakash, son of Sri Khem Chand and he was also not impleaded in the suit. On the other hand one Sri Rajendra Kumar was impleaded as one of the defendants. The suit as framed and filed was legally not maintainable.;