- (1.) An application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by Gopi Chand and Prem Chand (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) impleading Radhey Lal as an opposite party. The application was contested by Radhey Lal. He claimed that the premises had been let out to Sagar Mal, who was his father. On latters, death the tenancy was inherited by Shrimati Swaroopi Devi, the widow of the deceased Sagar Mal and three other heirs of the deceased Sagar Mal, apart from Radhey Lal. These other heirs were Shiva Lal, Ratan Lal and Shrimani Sona Devi. Thereupon, the twop landlords got their application filed under Section 21 amended and impleaded Ratan Lal, Shiva Lal and Shrimati Swaroopi Devi and Sona Devi as already stated. During the pendency of the application before the Prescribed Authority, Swaroopi Devi died. The application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on April 25, 1977. Against the said order Radhey Lal filed an appeal before the District judge. He did not implead his brother Ratan Lal and sister Sona Devi in the appeal. Shiva Lal was, however, impleaded as a respondent. An objection was raised by the landlords to the effect that in the absence of all the persons impleaded in the application the appeal was incompetent. On 2.9.1977 the appellate court held that Ratan Lal and Sona Devi were necessary parties and, as such, the petitioner was directed to implead these persons. As a result thereof, Ratan Lal and Sona Devi were impleaded. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, an objection was raised on behalf of the landlords that as Ratan Lal and Sona Devi were not impleaded in the appeal filed on 18.5.1977 their subsequent impleadment on 23.9.1977, long after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the appeal was fatal. The objection prevailed with the learned Additional District Judge. He held that the impugned order of the Prescribed Authority had been passed against Ratan Lal and Sona Devi as well as they had not been impleaded in the appeal within time, the same was not maintainable. The Judge held that Ratan Lal and Soni Devi were necessary parties in the appeal. In the view of the matter the appeal filed by Radhey Lal was dismissed on the preliminary objection raised by the landlords.
(2.) Against the aforesaid judgment the present writ petition was filed.
(3.) The question that arises for decision is the affect of non-impleadment of Ratan Lal and Sona Devi. As already pointed out that since Shrimati Swaroopi Devi died during the pendency of the application before the Prescribed Authority, her non-impleadment was inconsequential. The main contention urged on behalf of the landlords before me was that in case the appeal filed before the District Judge was allowed, there could have been the conflicting of judgments with regard to the same subject matter. The conflict pointed out was that if the appeal was allowed Radhey Lal and Shiva Lal would not be liable to be evicted from the shop whereas Ratan Lal and Shrimati Sona Devi would be liable to be dispossessed.;