IMPORTANT POINT
In an eviction petition u/s 21 of U.P. Rent Control Act filed by landlord, question of title was not to be decided by Prescribed Authority under the Act so as to implead a third party claiming ownership of property on basis of Will.

JUDGMENT

Thakker, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 36462 of 1996 dated September 19, 2002. By the said order, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant confirming the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Aligarh on October, 29, 1996 allowing the application of third party to be joined as respondent in U.P.U.B. Case No. 19 of 1989 instituted by Smt. Kamla Devi and another against Raj Pal.

3. The facts as stated by the appellants are that one Ramesh Chand Tewari (since deceased) husband of Smt. Kamla Devi (who also died during the pendency of the proceedings) and father of the appellant herein, was owner of the property in question. It was let out to one Raj Pal. Upon the death of Ramesh Chand Tewari, the property was inherited by the appellant and her mother Smt. Kamla Devi. Thus, they became the owners. Since they wanted the premises for business of Anurag, son of Kamla Devi and brother of appellant herein, they initiated proceedings for getting the property vacated from occupation of tenant in accordance with Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The proceedings were initiated in 1992. In 1993, the case came up for hearing. The tenant, however, wanted to delay the proceedings on one ground or the other. In the circumstances, Thakur Radha Krishanji Maharaj Virajman Mandir, through its Secretary, Banwari Lal Pandey made an application for impleadment as party respondent alleging that deceased Ramesh Chand Tewari, father of the appellant, had executed a will on February 07, 1978 in favour of Thakur Radha Krishanji Maharaj bequeathing the property to the temple and hence it ought to be joined as party respondent. The appellants contested the application contending that no such will was executed by the deceased in favour of temple and the documents were false and fabricated. It was also contended that the applicant was not necessary party and hence his application was not maintainable.

4. The Prescribed Authority, however, by an order dated October 29, 1996, allowed the application observing that the court was required to see whether Kamla Devi was the owner of the property after the death of Ramesh Chand Tewari or Thakur Radha Krishanji Maharaj had become owner thereof. When it was the case of the applicant that a will was executed in favour of Shri Thakur Radha Krishanji Maharaj by deceased Ramesh Chand Tewari, the applicant ought to be joined as party respondent. Accordingly, the prayer for impleadment was allowed.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the appellant preferred Miscellaneous Writ Petition which also came to be dismissed by the High Court. The said order is challenged in the present appeal.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that respondent No. 2 is neither necessary nor proper party to the proceedings. He, therefore, could not be joined as party respondent in the proceedings under the Act. It was also submitted that the Authority under the Act has no jurisdiction to decide "title" to the property and the only question it has to consider is as to whether the "landlord" is entitled to possession on the grounds mentioned in the application for eviction. The counsel also submitted that it was not even the case of respondent No. 1 that the appellant and her mother were not entitled to rent. On the contrary, it was admitted by him that the rent was paid to them. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and confirmed by the High Court deserves to be set aside.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and confirmed by the High Court. It was submitted that the appellant cannot be