Manoj Misra, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and peruse the record.
(2.) The plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed release application against Suresh Kumar Gupta (the second respondent) by impleading other co-sharers as proforma defendants. Suresh Kumar Gupta filed a written statement. In his written statement, there was no objection taken that the release application was not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties though the need of the applicant was denied. In fact, in paragraph 16 of the written statement, it was stated that originally the tenant of the premises was one Nand Kishore, who happened to be Tau (elder brother of the father) of the defendant, and after his death the defendant became the tenant of the premises. It was however alleged that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff. During the pendency of the release proceedings, an application was moved by the petitioner, who is one of the sons of Suresh Kumar Gupta, stating therein that in the premises in dispute business is being carried out in the name of Suresh Kumar Gupta and sons therefore he is a necessary party, accordingly, he should be impleaded.
(3.) By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected on the ground that no material was shown to disclose that there was a tenancy in favour of the petitioner and even otherwise it is well settled in law that proceedings could be drawn against any one of the joint tenants. In support of the aforesaid view, certain decisions were also noticed in the order passed by the court below.;