- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This is landlord's petition. It arises out of an application for release filed by the petitioner in respect of first floor accommodation of premises No. 106/3, Gandhi Nagar, P. Road, Kanpur Nagar of which the respondent No. 3, Om PRAKASH Dembla is the tenant for a sum of Rs. 88 per month for residential purpose.
(2.) THE petitioner 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 U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972), before the prescribed authority on the ground that the accommodation in question is bona fide required by him. He has a large family. Besides himself, his wife, three sons and four grandchildren are there. THEy are residing in one room accommodation of House No. 49/87, Naugraha, Kanpur with bath room on the first floor, kitchen and latrine on the second floor and one kothari and terrace on the third floor. It was registered as Rent Case No. 36 of 1997. In spite of service of notice, the tenant-respondent No. 3 herein, chose not to appear before the prescribed authority and the case proceeded exparte against him by order dated 28. 1. 1998. 23. 2. 1997 was the date fixed for exparte evidence. An application purporting to be under Order I, Rule 10, C. P. C. dated 13. 2. 1998 for impleadment was filed by the wife of the tenant, Smt. Urmila Dembla praying that she may be impleaded in place of her husband as her husband is out of station for the last one year regarding his business and he will further be out of station at least about one year. The said application was rejected by the order dated 24. 2. 1998. Thereafter dates after dates such as 13. 4. 1998, 21. 4. 1998, 28. 4. 1998, 8. 5. 1998, 19. 7. 98, 29. 8. 98, 29. 9. 98, 28. 10. 98, 5. 11. 98, 6. 11. 98, etc. , were fixed in the case. The application filed by the tenant/respondent No. 3, to recall the order dated 28. 1. 1998 was allowed subject to payment of Rs. 300 as costs. In spite of that the tenant-respondent failed to appear and contest the release application and the release application was ultimately allowed by the order dated 15. 11. 1999. It was found that the need of the petitioner is bona fide and genuine and the accommodation in question was consequently released in favour of the petitioner.
(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid order Rent Appeal No. 11 of 2000, was filed by Smt. Urmila Dembla wife of the tenant, Orn Prakash Dembla, Rishabh Dembla and Nishant Dembla (minor sons of Om Prakash Dembla) as appellants. In the memo of appeal it was stated that husband of Urmila Dembla is untraceable since the year 1995 and as such, the judgment of the prescribed authority releasing the disputed accommodation without impleading the wife of the tenant and sons, is illegal. The court below by the impugned judgment dated 22:5. 2003 has allowed the appeal, set aside the release order dated 15. 11. 1999 and remanded the matter back to the prescribed authority with direction to afford an opportunity of hearing to the wife of Om Prakash Dembla and the sons before deciding the release application. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment, the present writ petition is on behalf of the landlord.;