- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. All substitu tion applications in both the writ petitions are allowed.
(2.) BOTH the writ petitions have been filed by the tenants against the landlords in respect of the same property. Initially Abdul Sattar was the tenant who died leaving behind sev eral legal representatives. Shri Abdul Aziz and Smt. Zohra - husband and wife were originally landlords. They filed S. C. C. Suit No. 763 of 1980 against Abdul Razzak one of the sons of original tenant Abdul Sattar. In the suit eviction was sought on several grounds including the ground of sub-letting, it was alleged that Abdul Razzak had sub-let the tenanted house to Abdul Majeed who was real brother of Abdul Razzak. Suit was dismissed on 15. 4. 1983 holding that there was not sub-tenancy. Said judgment and decree was not challenged. Thereafter in 1984-85 original owners landlords Abdul Aziz and Smt. Zohra transferred the house in dispute to Jamil Ahmad. Information of the said transfer was given by the transferor and transferee both to some of the heirs of Abdul Sattar. Thereafter the new purchasers filed release application before Rent Control and Eviction Officer under section 16 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 stating therein that Mohd. Nasir the tenant had sublet the property in dispute to Aslam hence there was vacancy. Application was filed on 30. 12. 1986. R. C. and E. O. /city Magistrate, Kanpur through order dated 25. 5. 1988 declared the house in dispute to be vacant. The said order was passed in case No. 3 of 1987, Jamil Ahmad v. Aslam. Said order has been challenged through the first writ petition. Before R. C. and E. O. earlier judgment of 1983 was also filed. It is not disputed that Mohd. Nasir is son of Abdul Razzak and Mohd. Aslam is son of Abdul Majeed. Both Abdul Razzak and Abdul Majeed were sons of Abdul Sattar the original tenant. In my opinion the order declaring vacancy is patently erroneous in law. Both Mohd. Nasir and Mohd. Aslam are grand sons of Abdul Sattar hence residence of any of them can not amount to vacancy. Accordingly, first writ petition is allowed. Order dated 25. 5. 1988 declaring va cancy is set aside.
(3.) SIMULTANEOUSLY new purchaser landlord Jameel Ahmad also initiated eviction/release proceedings against three sons of Abdul Razzak i. e. , Mohd. Nasir, Abdul Wahab and Abdul Salam, and Smt. Bismillah wife of Late Abdul Razzak on the ground of bonafide need under section 21 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of case No. 58 of 1989. Release application was filed under both the Clauses (a) and (b) of section 21 (I) of the Act i. e. , on the ground of bonafide need as well as dilapidated condition of the building. Prescribed Authority, Kanpur through judgment and order dated 11. 5. 1993 allowed the release appli cation only on the ground of dilapidated condition i. e. , under section 21 (1) (b) of the Act but dismissed the release application on the ground of bonafide need i. e. under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. Against the said judgment and order both the parties i. e. landlord and opposite parties-tenants in the release applica tion filed appeals being Rent Appeal No. 90 of 1993 and Rent Appeal No. 95 of 1993. In the appeals, petitioners who are also descendants of Abdul Sattar the original tenant, filed impleadment applications. Applications were rejected on 10. i. 1995. Applications for recalling the said order were filed on 6. 2. 1995 which were rejected on 6. 2,1995 itself. On 10. 1. 1995 impleadment application were rejected ex-parte. However, the said order is quite detailed order which was passed after hearing learned Counsel for the landlord and after perusing the allegations made in the impleadment applications. The orders dated 10. 1. 1995 and 6. 2. 1995 have been challenged through the second writ petition. After the death of the tenant all his heirs inherit the tenancy jointly and in case of joint tenants, impleadment of some of them in suit/application for eviction is sufficient as held by the Supreme Court in Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, U,p. and A. C. Juker v. K. P. Mantri AIR 2001 SC 225 =2001 SCFRC 342. However, in my opinion under the facts and circumstances of the case there was no harm in permitting the petitioners to be impleaded in the ap peals.;