Shashi Kant Gupta, J.—

1. An application under Section 21 of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act") was filed by the Respondent No. 2, Kishwar Jahan against the tenant-Respondent No. 3, Smt. Hasmi on the ground of bonafide and genuine. The said release application was registered as Rent Case No. 15 of 2007. During the pendency of the said application, an impleadment application was filed by the petitioner under Rule 22 (F) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 and under Order 1 Rule 10 read with 151 CPC. Objection was filed against the said impleadment application by the Respondent No. 2. The court below by order dated 30.10.2009 dismissed the said application. Hence the present writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a owner and landlord of House No. 88/493 (old number) 88/534 (new number), Chamanganj, Kanpur Nagar. In pursuance to the Partition Suit No. 59 of 1978 final decree was prepared on 7.1.1998 and the respective possession was given to the parties to the suit. He further submitted that the petitioner is a necessary and proper party; Respondent No. 2 does not have any locus standi to file the release application. It was further submitted that the respondent No. 2 in collusion with the tenant-Respondent No. 3 has filed the release application.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submitted that the property in dispute was purchased by the Respondent No. 2 through registered sale dated dated 21.1.2003 from the erstwhile owner Tehzibulnisha wife of late Isteyaq Mohammad and the said sale deed has not yet been challenged by the petitioner or anyone else. It was further submitted that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor proper party in the suit and the court below has rightly rejected the impleadment application filed by the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. It is not disputed that the Partition Suit No. 59 of 1978 was decreed and final decree was prepared on 7.1.1998. It is also not disputed that the property in dispute was purchased by the Respondent No. 2 through a registered sale deed 21.1.2003. It has also not been disputed by the parties that till date sale deed dated 21.1.2003 executed in favour of the Respondent No. 2 has neither been challenged by the petitioner nor anyone else. Moreso, the Prescribed Authority would be under obligation to decide the question with regard to existence of landlord-tenant relationship in between the Respondent No. 2 and 3 if the dispute so arises. The apex court in the case of Vijay Lata Sharma Vs. Raj Pal, 2004-LAWS (SC)-8-127 has held that the question of title cannot be decided by the prescribed authority.

6. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned order. Reasons mentioned by the court below while dismissing the application of the petitioner to implead him as a third party are good enough to satisfy the impugned order and no fault can be found with the approach adopted by the court below.

7. In view of what has been discussed herein above, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may warrant any interference.

8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

_

Click Here to Read the rest of this document