High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shyam Sunder And Another v. Keshav Singh And Another - WRIT - A No. 6808 of 2007  RD-AH 2100 (8 February 2007)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The case of the petitioners is that father of petitioner no. 1 had let out a shop having dimention of 18 feet x 22 feet to one Sri Siya Ram on a monthly rent of Rs.270/- . Father of petitioner no. 1 filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ''U.P.Act No. XIII of 1972) for release of the shop against respondent no. 1- the tenant, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 8 of 2004. During the pendency of the suit, father of the petitioner no. 1 died and in his place, name of petitioner no. 1 was substituted.
Sri Siya Ram, the original tenant also died on 19.4.2004 and after his death, the tenancy devolved upon his son Sri Keshav Singh, respondent no. 1, who deposited rent in Court till 29.2.2004.
The release application was contested by the respondent no. 2 by filing written statement dated 5.7.2005 denying the plaint allegations.
It is alleged that the respondent no. 2, the tenant always used to file frivolous application and transfer applications with a view to delay the disposal of the release application. He also moved an impleadment application dated 6.11.2006 in collusion with respondent no. 1, his brother.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 64610 of 2006 for direction to decide the case expeditiously.
The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 4.12.2006 with a direction to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Firozabad to decide the proceedings by 4.12.2006.
It is claimed by the petitioner that his application for impleadment of three brothers was rejected by the Court below vide order dated 3.1.2007 holding that the petitioner had earlier moved application for impleadment of respondent no. 2 only, who was necessary party. The recall application dated 8.1.2007 has been rejected by the Court below vide impugned order dated 16.1.2007.
Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up before this Court by means of the instant writ petition.
From perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition merely on apprehension that three brothers of the tenant may move application for their impleadment. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned as applications, on mere apprehension, cannot be entertained.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.