Sunita Agarwal, J. –

Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 6.1.2016 passed in application 67-Ga for impleadment in the Rent Revision No. 11 of 2014 (Smt. Usha Verma & another v. Shiv Narayan Kashyap & others).

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner namely Kamal Chandra Mishra claims himself a co-owner of the disputed property which has been declared vacant by order dated 26.9.2013.

4. It appears that after declaration of vacancy, two release applications were filed. One by the petitioner namely Kamal Chandra Mishra and another by Maya Rani Gupta who had purchased the disputed property by way of a sale deed dated 18.1.2010 from other co-owners namely Kranti Chandra Mishra and his sister Smt. Lakkhi Pandey.

5. It appears that the release application filed by Kamal Chandra Mishra was rejected on the ground that he sought release of three shops which were not subject matter of order of vacancy. The vacancy has been declared only with regard to residential portion at the