Mam Chandra Agarwal, J. - (1.) BY this petition, the petitioner, Sunil Kumar, who is since dead and is represented by his legal representatives, who have been brought on record, challenged an order dated 11.1.1994, passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur whereby his application for impleadment as respondent in Rent Control Revision No. 184 of 1990 'Sukhbir Singh v. State' was dismissed. I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 2.
(2.) SUKHBIR Singh, respondent No. 2 applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Saharanpur for allotment of a shop contending that the same had fallen vacant. The petitioner, Sunil Kumar was amongst the persons who had contested the said suit. His case was that there was no accommodation in existence within the meaning of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and also that he was carrying on his business in the disputed property. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer by an order dated 6.12.1990 held that there was no building in existence and, therefore, the property cannot be declared to be vacant. The application for allotment was accordingly rejected. The said Sukhbir Singh preferred Rent Control Revision No. 184 of 1990 before the District Judge without impleading the said Sunil Kumar Sunil Kumar then moved an application for impleadment contending that he was in occupation of the place as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 300/ - and was contesting the proceedings before the authority below and he should be impleaded as party. This application has been rejected on the ground that since the accommodation has not been declared vacant, he cannot be impleaded. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the approach of the learned District Judge was legally erroneous. The petitioner, Sunil Kumar was an objector before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and he was claiming to be in possession in the disputed property, therefore, he was vitally affected by any order declaring the property to be vacant and since he was already contesting before the Rent Control and Eviction officer, there was no justification for not impleading him and giving opportunity of hearing. The impugned order, therefore, was legally erroneous.
(3.) HOWEVER , since the petitioner, Sunil Kumar is already dead, it is only his legal representatives, who have been brought on record of the present petition, who may, therefore, apply to the court concerned for impleadment as respondents in the said revision petition and if they do apply, their application shall be allowed and they shall be given an opportunity of hearing.;