( 1 ) THIS appeal by special leave has been Filed by the landlady. She laid action under S. 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) for eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement to start business by her son. The prescribed authority and the Appellate tribunal found as a fact that the appellant required the premises bona Fide to start the business. But the High court allowed the writ netition, set aside the order on the sole ground that the married daughters of the original tenant, Lalu were not impleaded who are the necessary parties and, therefore, the non-joinder of the necessary parties disentitle the landlady to have theejectment of the tenants namely the sons and the widow of the deceased tenant Lalu.

( 2 ) THE only question that arises in this case is whether the married a daughters of the deceased tenant are necessary parties and that nonimpleading them would disentitle the landlady to maintain the action for ejectment. Admittedly, Lalu the original tenant died in 1965. Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated in 1974. Till then, one of the sons of Lalu, namely, Bhole Nath was in occupation of the premises and did carry on business as admitted by him in affidavit Ex. SA-II "that the deponent is the tenant of a portion of house No. 55, That (a) (2. They are entitled to succeed to the tenants leasehold rights under the Act, including not merely to the liabilities to pay rent as contended by the appellant but also to continue the business until duly ejected as per the provisions of the Act. Whether non-impleadment of the married daughters would vitiate matainability of the proceedings for ejectment? The finding recorded by the Rent Appellate tribunal was that by necessary implication, the married daughters surrendered their tenancy rights inherited under the Act. After the demise of Lalu, the daughters evinced no interest to assert their rights, is well justified. Once that is found to be so, their non-impleadment as respondents does not vitiate the action for non-joinder of them as necessary parties nor maintainability of the proceedings for ejectment itself. The High court committed grave errors of law in allowing the writ petition and dismissing the application for ejectment. The order of the High court is set aside and that of the prescribed authority and the tribunal are restored. It is not in dispute that the landlady offered a reasonable portion of the premises to the respondent to an extent of 3 1/2 x 6 in the veranda but respondent had refused to accept that offer but in this court the learned counsel for the respondents requested to allow the tenant to retain the portion offered. In fairness, Mr Agarwal, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has not objected to it. Accordingly it isopen to the tenant to occupy the portion offered by the appellant and vacate the other portion which is required by the petitioner for starting a the business of her son. The appellant would carve out the portion in a suitable and convenient manner to run the business by the respondent. The appeal is allowed with the above modifications, but in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs.