A.N.Varma, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution directed against an order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge on 29-11-76 allowing an appeal filed by the tenant-respondent and dismissing an application of the petitioner under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground that it was not maintainable.
(2.) The ground upon which the petition has been dismissed by the learned District Judge is that the application of the petitioner under Section 21 of the aforesaid Act was not signed by all the co-landlords. The co-landlords who had not signed the petition were arrayed as opposite parties in the application under Section 21 of the aforesaid Act. The learned District Judge has placed reliance on sub-rule (2) of R. 15 of the Rules framed under the aforesaid Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the view taken by the learned District Judge that the application of the petitioner was not maintainable is ex facie unsustainable in law. Rule 15 of the Rules reads as follows:- "15. The application for release of buildings in the occupation of tenants - (S. 21 (1)) - (1) Every application for release under Section 21 (1) shall specify the ground or grounds on which the tenant is sought to be evicted. (2) The application or its reply shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed under Rr. 14 and 15 of O. VI of the First Schedule to the Civil P. C. 1908. If there are more than one landlord, the application shall be signed by all the co-landlords. (3) Every application referred to in sub-rule (1) shall as far as possible, be decided within two months from the date of its presentation." The learned District Judge has held that the provisions of sub-rule (2) are mandatory and that where there are more than one landlord, each one must sign the application under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972. In my view, the learned District Judge is not right. The learned District Judge has overlooked other provisions which have an important bearing on the construction which is to be placed on sub-rule (2) of Rule 15. Rule 13 of the aforesaid Rules is as follows: "13. Application for release of vacant buildings - (S. 16 (1) (b)). - Every application for release under clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 16 shall specify the ground or grounds on which the building or part thereof or any land appurtenant thereto is sought to be released. (2) The application or any objection thereto shall be signed and verified in the manner prescribed under Rules 14 and 15 of 0. VI of the First Schedule to the Civil P. C., 1908. If there are more than one landlords or alleged tenants, as the case may be, the application may be signed by any one of them, but in any such case the co-landlords shall be arrayed as pro forma opposite parties. (3) Where the application referred to in sub-rule (1) is made on the ground that the building is required for demolition and new construction the procedure laid down in R. 17 shall mutatis mutandis be followed. (4) Every application under Section 16 (1) (b) shall be a matter between the District Magistrate and the landlord, and the out-going tenant or the prospective allottee, if any, shall have no right to file any objection against it. (5) Every application under this Rule shall, as far as possible, be decided within one month from the date of its presentation, and no allotment in respect of a building covered by an application under this rule shall be made unless such application is rejected."
(3.) It would thus appear that the Rules expressly permit signing of the application under Section 21 by one or more of the co-landlords provided the other co-landlords are arrayed as pro forma opposite parties. If the Rules permit making of the application by only some of the co-landlords, it is difficult to conceive that the rule-making authority provided or intended at the same time that the application must be signed by every co-landlord including one who has not joined in making of the application and who is arrayed as pro forma opposite party. In my view, the provisions which require an application under Section 21 to be signed by all the co-landlords have to be read harmoniously and in the context of the other Rules also, and if so construed, there can be no manner of doubt that sub-rule (21 of R. 15 under the Act applies only to those cases where all the co-landlords have joined in the making of the application. Obviously, the application has to be signed only by those co-landlords who make the application and not by the non-petitioning landlords also. It would be sufficient compliance with the rules if the non-petitioning landlords are arrayed as pro forma respondents.;