Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions are directed against the order dated 11.2.1997 rejecting the application of the petitioners for impleadment and the order dated 4.12.1997 passed by the Appellate Authority deciding the appeal in terms of compromise. The facts, in brief, are that the landlord Dahya Bhai filed an application for release of the disputed premises under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act). The Prescribed Authority rejected the application. An appeal was filed against this order. During the pendency of the appeal Dahya Bhai and Sita Ram, the landlord, died and application for substitution was filed to implead the heirs of Dahya Bhai. Dahya Bhai died leaving behind him two daughters, Urmila Ben and Nirmala Ben and one daughter -in -law Smt. Manjula Ben and one grand -daughter Trishna. The substitution application was allowed.
(2.) THE petitioners filed an application before the Appellate Authority that the Firm was a tenant and as they are partners of the Firm they are entitled to be impleaded in the proceedings, the Appellate Authority rejected the application vide order dated 11.2.1997 on the ground that the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was filed against Dahya Bhai and not against any Firm. The application was accordingly rejected. The heirs of Dahya Bhai entered into compromise with the landlord. The appeal was decided in terms of the compromise on 4.12.1997. The petitioners aggrieved against the aforesaid order have riled these writ petitions.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.;