S. P. MEHROTRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the order dated 6-9-2002 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Court No. 8), meerut in S. C. C. Revision No. 131 of 1998.

( 2 ) THE dispute relates to a shop No. 57, nagarpalika No. 1605/27 situated in Gol market, Mohalla Munna Lal, Kasba Mawana kalan, Tehsil Mawana, District Meerut. The said shop has. hereinafter, been referred to as the disputed shop.

( 3 ) FROM the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 filed a suit against the defendant-respondent No. 2 for ejectment and arrears of rent etc. in respect of the disputed shop. The said suit was registered as S. C. C. Suit No. 297 of 1993. A copy of the plaint has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition.

( 4 ) IT was, inter-alia, alleged in the said suit that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was the sole owner and landlord of the disputed shop; and that there had been a family settlement between the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and his other brothers, according to which, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was the owner and landlord of the disputed shop.

( 5 ) IT was, inter-alia, further alleged in the said suit that the defendant-respondent No. 2 was the tenant of the disputed shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-; and that a registered notice dated 17-6-1993 was given by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 to the defendant-respondent No. 2 determining the tenancy of the defendant-respondent No. 2 in the disputed shop; and that the said notice was served on the defendant-respondent No. 2 on 18-6-1993; and that the said notice determined a the tenancy of the defendant-respondent No. 2 on the expiry of 30 days from the service of the said notice; and that thus the tenancy of the defendant-respondent No. 2 stood determined on 17-7-1993 in respect of the disputed shop, and since 18-7-1993, the occupation of the defendant-respondent No. 2 over the diputed shop became unauthorized.

( 6 ) IT further appears that the said suit was contested by the defendant-respondent No. 2 evidence was led by both the sides in the said suit. Ultimately, by the judgment and order dated 11-2-1998 the said suit was decreed by the Additional Judge Small Cause Court, meerut. A copy of the said judgment and order dated 11-2-1998 has been annexed as annexure 4 to the writ petition.

( 7 ) THEREUPON, the defendant-respondent no. 2 filed a revision under Section 25 of the provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The said revision was registered as S. C. C. Revision No. 131 of 1998.

( 8 ) IT further appears that during the pendency of the said revision, the petitioner moved an application (No. 50 Ga) dated 19-8-2002 under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 code of Civil Procedure, inter-alia, praying that the petitioner be impleaded as a party in case. A copy of the said application dated 19-8-2002 has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition.

( 9 ) IT was, inter-alia, alleged in the said application dated 19-8-2002 filed by the petitioner that the disputed shop,was a joint Hindu family property, and there was no partition among the members of the joint Hindu family; and that the petitioner and his brothers and sisters etc. were co-owners of the disputed shop; and that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was not the sole owner of the diputed shop, and he alone had no right to file the said S. C. C. Suit No. 297 of 1993.

( 10 ) THE plain tiff respondent No. 1 filed an objection dated 20th August, 2002 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) against the said application filed by the petitioner for impleadment.

( 11 ) BY the order dated 6-9-2002, the learned Additional District Judge (Court No. 8) Meerut rejected the said application No. 50-Ga filed by the petitioner for impleadment

( 12 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the reliefs mentioned above. I have hea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document