S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri A.S. Diwekar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 Parasuram Vishwakarma.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 4 filed a release application under section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against tenant-respondent No. 5, Rajpal. Release application was filed on the ground of bona fide need. Property in dispute is a room. According to the case set up by the tenant respondent No. 5, rent is Rs. 89/- per month. Learned Counsel for the landlord-respondent No. 4 states that for several years, rent has not been paid. Payment of rent is not much relevant for the purpose of this writ petition. Release application, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 1 of 2003 was allowed by Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C., Allahabad through judgment and order dated 19.2.2007. Against the said judgment and order, tenant-respon­dent No. 5 Rajpal has filed appeal in the form of R.C. Appeal No. 59 of 2007. In the appeal, petitioner filed an application for impleadment showing that he was landlord. Said application has been rejected on 17.7.2008 by A.D.J., Court No. 2, Allahabad. Against the said order, this writ petition has been filed. Prima facie, it appears that petitioner has been set up by the tenant-respondent No. 5 to delay the proceedings. Argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he has filed regular suit being O.S. No. 145 of 2008 against respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
(3.) IF the suit is ultimately decreed, petitioner may apply to obtain posses­sion from the landlord-respondent No. 4, in case appeal is dismissed and he ob­tains possession otherwise petitioner would become landlord of respondent No. 5 tenant.;