Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) SRI Verendra Vikram Tiwari (Respondent No. 3) filed an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (the Act) for release of the shop in question in the year 1986. In this application it was alleged that Sri Kailash Babu Rathore (respondent No. 4) is a tenant and Makrand Dubey and Arvind Dubey father of Makrand Dubey (the petitioner) and Sri Avinash Chandra Modwal (respondent No. 5) are the sub -tenant. These proceedings were abated as no substitution application was filed on the death of opposite party. Subsequently, the respondent No. 3 filed another application under Section 21 of the Act, on 23rd December, 1993. This time only respondent No. 4 was shown as opposite party. The petitioner or respondent No. 5 were earlier alleged to be sub -tenant were not made party. This application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority on 23rd April, 1994. The petitioner filed an application on 17th April, 1996 to set aside the order dated 23rd April, 1994. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on 7th September, 1999. Hence the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tandon, Counsel for the caveator -respondents. The Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the earlier application the petitioner's father was a party, but in this application he was not impleaded as a party and as such no opportunity have been given to him to put forward his case. Sri Arvind Srivastava has further argued that the petitioner is the tenant of the Nagar Palika, Etawah and as such is not liable for eviction on the basis of the eviction order passed against the respondent No. 4. According to the case of respondent No. 3 the petitioner was sub -tenant. It is not necessary to implead him.
(3.) THE Courts below by the order dated 17th September, 1999 held that the petitioner has not been able to prima facie prove that he is a tenant of Nagar Palika, Etawah. The petitioner neither before the Court below nor before this Court have filed a single document namely rent receipt, allotment order from the Nagar Palika to show that he was a tenant of the Nagar Palika. The Court below has held that the petitioner was sub -tenant. He was not a necessary party, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. The petition has no merits, it is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted three months time to vacate the premises in dispute, provided he files an undertaking in the form of an affidavit within one month before the Prescribed Authority that he will vacate the premises and hand over peaceful possession to respondent No. 3.;