Sudhir Agarwal, J.:—

1. Sri V.P.Varshney, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Manish Tandon, Advocate for respondent No.4 and Sri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

2. Sri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate, has also moved an impleadment application on behalf of Bittan Babu Verma, Son of Roop Kishor but Roop Kishore himself is a party to these proceedings, therefore he has not pressed this application. It is accordingly rejected.

3. The dispute relates to a shop situated at Mohalla Purani Kotwali, Aligarh. It was owned by Ratan Shankar Yagnik. Sri Jwala Prasad was the tenant in the said shop. After the death of Sri Ratan Shankar Yagnik, the shop in question has been succeeded by his heirs/legal representatives, who are the petitioners No.1 to 8. Similarly, Sri Jwala Prasad, the original tenant, died in 1984, whereafter his tenancy rights have been succeeded by respondent No.3, Smt. Chameli Devi, widow of Late Jwala Prasad (the respondent no.3 has also died and her legal heir is already arrayed as respondent No.4).

4. The petitioners filed an application dated 7.4.1987 being U.P.U.B. Case No.45 of 1987 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") before Prescribed Authority, Aligarh seeking release of shop in question for settling the applicant No.1 i.e. Devi Shanker Yagnik, Son of late Ratan Shanker Yagnik. It appears that after registering the application, notices were issued but not served upon the respondents. Thereafter petitioners moved an application, 9-C, dated 31.8.1987, requesting the Trial Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for service of notice upon respondent-tenants. The aforesaid application was allowed by Prescribed Authority vide order dated 8.9.1987. The landlord-applicants were directed to take steps for service through Commissioner within seven days, who was required to submit report within a month.

5. The defendant No.2 namely Roop Kishore himself put in appearance on 8.9.1987 since he was already served in the meantime. The Prescribed Authority directed to serve a copy of notice to him (defendant no.2) and fixed 9.10.1987 for written statement. For service of notice upon unserved defendant no.1, namely, Smt. Chameli Devi, the matter came up before Prescribed Authority on 15.9.1987 and the Court found that applicants have not taken steps for service through Commissioner. In the circumstances application against opposite party no.1, namely, Smt. Chameli Devi was rejected.

6. The opposite party no.2 contested the matter by filing written statement dated 11.1.1988. The opposite party no.1 namely Chameli Devi, supported the case of opposite party no.2, came in evidence by filing an affidavit dated 8.5.1991.

7. The Prescribed Authority vide judgment dated 12.5.1993 rejected the application of landlords for release of the shop in question under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, 1972. The said judgment has been confirmed in appeal by IInd Additional District Judge, Aligarh dismissing petitioner's U.P.U.B. Appeal No.13 of 1993 vide judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2000.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that landlords' need has been found genuine and bona fide by the Courts below yet the petitioners have been non suited and their application have been rejected mainly on the ground that application No.45 of 1987 was already rejected for non prosecution against defendant no.1, Smt. Chameli Devi, by Prescribed Authority's order dated 15.9.1987 and since tenancy in shop in question was joint, once application for release was rejected against one of the joint tenant, no relief can be granted against other joint tenant since it is a single unit tenancy. Sri Varshney submitted that this approach is illegal. He further said that opposite party no.2 i.e. respondent no.4, before this Court was also a joint tenant. He was duly represented and contested the matter. It was not necessary that all the joint tenants should

Click Here to Read the rest of this document