- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) AJAI Singhal, the landlord filed release application on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against Mohan lal Gupta, respondent No. 1 in the first writ petition and respondent No. 3 in the second writ petition. Property in dispute is a shop. Release application was registered as P. A. Case No. 22 of 1999 and was allowed by Prescribed Authority, Meerut through order dated 18. 8. 2000. Release application had been filed on the ground that building in dispute was in a dilapidated condition and required demolition and reconstruc tion. Against the judgment and order passed by Prescribed Authority, Mohan lal Gupta filed Misc. Appeal No. 235 of 2000. In the said appeal Smt. Shakuntala Devi, Brij Mohan and Smt. Kumud Devi, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the first writ petition and petitioners in the second writ petition filed an impleadment application. Smt. Shakuntala Devi is mother of Mohan lal Gupta and Brij Mohan is brother and Smt. Kumud is sister of Mohan lal Gupta. It was stated in the impleadment application that applicants being widow, son and daughter of original tenant Kali Charan were also tenants and hence they should be impleaded. Lower Appellate Court/a. D. J. , Court No. 10, Meerut al lowed the impleadment application through order dated 26. 8. 2006. The first writ petition by landlord is directed against the order allowing the implead ment application. Thereafter appeal was heard and dismissed on 24. 5. 2008 by A. D. J. Court No. 10, Meerut. The said order has been challenged, through second writ petition by Smt. Shakuntala Devi and two others, the persons who were impleaded in the appeal of Mohan lal. As appeal has been decided hence first writ petition has become infructuous (in the first writ petition no stay order was granted ). Accordingly, first writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. In the second writ petition, on behalf of the impleaded parties in the appeal, nothing has been argued on merit. The only grievance of the petitioners is that they were not formally added in the memo of appeal hence they could not argue the appeal. A copy of the order sheet has also been annexed along with the writ petition and separate typed copy has been supplied.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners in the second writ petition has ar gued that the Lower Appellate Court in the very first sentence said that more than 30 adjournments had been sought, 10 misc. applications and 4 amendment applications had been filed. According to the learned Counsel for the petition ers, on various stages adjournment was sought by the landlord himself. As is ev ident from the order sheet of the Court below, the impleaded par ties/petitioners constantly hammered that they must actually be added in the memo of appeal. Same argument has been raised in this writ petition. The appeal was of Mohan lal, the real son and brother of the im pleaded parties. If Mohan lal did not actually impleaded the petitioners in his appeal, landlord cannot be made to suffer. The Lower Appellate Court never restrained the learned Counsel for the petitioners to argue the appeal. No specific allegation in this regard had been made in the writ petition. The only thing which has been stated in paras 30 to 32 of the writ petition is that the impugned order is in contravention of principles of natural justice and petitioners were necessary party to be heard. From perusal of the order sheet dated 22. 4. 2008 it is clear that parties were heard. Even thereafter on 26. 4. 2008 the petitioners filed application that they must actually be impleaded.;