- (1.) IN this interlocutory application, the applicant -intervener has prayed for his addition as party (respondent) in the writ petition.
(2.) IT has been submitted that the writ petition is related to Mutation Case No.137 of 1987 -88 in respect of lease of Khas Mahal Holding no.416, comprising within Plot no.498, measuring an area of 5 decimals. It has been stated that the said lease stood in the name of Karuna Prasad and Arunjay Prasad. They had inducted a tenant, namely, Satyapal Verma (father of the writ petitioners). The applicant was posted at Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh) and in his absence, the writ petitioners filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner for mutation of their names in respect of the said holding, which has been entertained by the Deputy Commissioner. Since the applicant is highly interested person, he should be also added as a party (respondent) in this writ petition. The writ petitioners objected to the prayer made in this interlocutory application on the ground that the lease granted in favour of the father of the applicant -intervener has already expired and they are in occupation of the premises and, thereafter, they were offered to exercise option for renewal of the lease. The petitioners exercised their option for renewal of the lease and the same is still pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Plamau.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that admittedly the applicant's father was the original lessee and there was an order for process of renewal in favour of the applicantintervener. In view of the above, I find that the applicant's presence is necessary for the ends of justice.;