S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared on behalf of Cantonment Board Cantt, Kanpur respondent No. 2.
(2.) PROPERTY in dispute is a shop belonging to Cantonment Board Cantt, Kanpur. Abdul Rajjak father of petitioner and original respondents No. 4 to 7 was tenant of the shop in dispute. Cantonment Board Cantt, Kanpur initiated proceedings for eviction of Abdul Rajjak father of the petitioner, petitioner and A. Qayyum petitioner's brother under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, which was numbered as Case No. 1338 of 1986. Estate Officer, Cantonment Board Cantt, Kanpur allowed the case and directed eviction of Abdul Rajjak and others. Against the said order, only petitioner filed appeal, which was numbered as P.P. Appeal No. 39 of 1987. In the appeal, substitution application was filed on 13.11.1991 as Abdul Rajjak had died on 6.11.1991. Appeal was filed by present petitioner Abdul Gaffar and he impleaded his father Abdul Rajjak as respondent No. 2 and Abdul Qayum another son of Abdul Rajjak as respondent No. 3. In the application dated 13.11.1991 filed by the petitioner, it was stated that as other four sons of deceased Abdul Rajjak were not available to give their consent for being impleaded as appellants, hence, they must be impleaded as respondents. Before initiating proceedings for eviction under P.P. Act, Cantonment Board Cantt, Kanpur had given notice to Abdul Rajjak and his two sons, i.e., petitioner Abdul Gaffar and Abdul Qayum. Abdul Gaffar did not file any objection in the case. Abdul Qayum stated that he had no concern with the shop in dispute.
(3.) VIIITH A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar before whom P. P. Appeal No. 39 of 1987 was pending, rejected the substitution application through order dated 7.8.1996 on the ground that Abdul Rajjak had not appeared, hence by virtue of Order XXII, Rule 4 (4), C.P.C., it was not necessary to implead his heirs. In my opinion, firstly C.P.C. does not apply to proceedings under P.P. Act. Secondly, even if the principle of Order XXII, Rule 4 (4) applies, still by virtue of the said provision, it is not essential to implead legal representatives of the party, who has not filed written statement, however, there is no prohibition against impleading them.;