Tenancy rights devolve on heirs as joint tenants, making release applications maintainable against all heirs despite specific pleadings.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri W.H.Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.D. Singh Sekhar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Petitioner Vijay Kalra has questioned the order passed by Rent Appellate Court in Rent Control Appeal No. 21 of 2022 allowing release application qua tenanted premises in favour of landlord respondent-Anuj Kumar, even though the land lord respondent never admitted petitioner to be tenant and even after his impleadment being ordered in the release application by amendment in release application, it was made specific to opposite party No. 1 therein. It is argued that since release was filed against opposite party No. 1, the release of denied premises could not have been ordered against present petitioner. He claimed to have entered into a partnership firm with his father, Hansraj Kalra in 1984 and after death of his father in the year 1992, he became proprietor of the firm, namely, M/s. Hemraj and he having not been treated as tenant by the land landlord, the application could not have been granted taking him to have succeeded the tenancy being one of the heirs of Hemraj for alleged succession of tenancy.

3. In support of his above arguments, so advanced, Sri W.H. Khan learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner placed before the Court the order of High Court allowing impleadment application passed in Writ A No. 16410 of 2015. It is submitted that after impleadment was allowed on 18.5.2015 when it became necessary for the landlord to amend release application and he impladed petitioner only as defendant No. 2 on account of order being passed by the High Court but then proceeded to further amend paragraphs 2, 8, 9 and 10 of release application to make release application specific to respondent No. 1 Vinod Kalra only. He also took the Court to the written statement filed by present petitioner in the release application wherein he claimed himself to be the tenant of the landlord as a proprietorship firm of which he was sole proprietor, but the landlord refused to recognize him as tenant as he had made specific pleadings in paragraph 17 of the reply that for mere signing the receipts issued against payment of rent, Vijay Kalra would not become his tenant. He further pleaded before the Court that in paragraph 17 of the said affidavit in reply, the landlord admitted that M/s. Hansraj Vinod Kalra tenant.

4. It is further argued that in written statement, it was specifically pleaded by the present petitioner that he was helping his father Hansraj and became a partner with him in 1984 forming a partnership firm, copy whereof has also been brought on record as annexure 8 to the petition. Thus, it is submitted that when petitioner himself was a tenant being partners of the firm and with the dissolution thereof in 1992, petitioner formed a proprietorship firm and was admitted as tenant in individual and independent capacity, the landlord having not maintained the release application against petitioner by amending it to the extent that relief was being claimed as only against Vinod Kalra, namely, defendant No. 1 impleaded in the application, merely because petitioner was a party would not have rendered the release application maintainable against him under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

5. In support of above argument, he has placed reliance upon the authority of Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash and others v. Ram Kumar and others, (1991) 1 SCC 441 and Maqboolunnisa v. Mohd. Saleha Quaraishi.

6. Another argument was sought to be advanced by Mr. Khan that there was no sufficient service of notice upon defendant No. 1 to maintain release as against him and has relied upon judgment of coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Aayal Das v. Shelendra Agrawal and others, (