Court No. - 19
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8865 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shri Pipleshwar Mahadev Mandir Sewa Samiti, Kanpur Nagar Respondent :- Laxmi Narayan Gupta And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Bans Singh
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed challenging order dated 17.10.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 83/2015 rejecting the review application bearing paper No. 3 Kha and the order dated 1.4.2017 also passed by the same Court rejecting impleadment application filed by the petitioner bearing paper No. 34 Ga.
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'landlords') filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against respondent Nos. 3 to 7 (for short 'tenants'). It was registered as P.A. Case No. 3/2004. Vide an order dated 14.10.2015, the release application was allowed and the premises in the tenancy of the tenants was released in favour of landlords. Aggrieved thereby, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 filed Rent Appeal No. 83/2015. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an impleadment application seeking its impleadment as a party respondent. The petitioner alleged that the eastern boundary of the demised premises shown in the release application was incorrect. In fact, on the eastern side, their exists temple of Mahadevji and a huge Pipal tree and thereafter two shops, all of which according to the petitioner belongs to it. However, the landlord has with oblique motives included the aforesaid property of the petitioner within the boundaries of the demised premises. The petitioner accordingly sought impleadment at the appellate stage. The Appellate Authority rejected the application holding that the plea which was raised by the petitioner would necessitate deciding a title dispute which is beyond the scope of appeal. The Court further observed that in the appeal, the issues which are required to be considered are relating to the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and whether the need of the landlord is bona fide or not. The Appellate Authority relying on various judgments of this Court held that the petitioner could not be impleaded and accordingly rejected the application. The petitioner filed a review application seeking review of the said order and the said application has also been rejected by order dated 17.10.2018.
The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the boundaries of the tenanted premises, as disclosed in the release application, are incorrect. He submitted that as a result of wrong description of the tenanted property, the landlord had succeeded in obtaining a release order in respect of a property belonging to the petitioner. It is urged that in such circumstances, the petitioner is a necessary and a proper party to the appeal.
In an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the Appellate Authority is required to go into the validity of the release order passed under Section 21 of the Act. For passing a release order in favour of a tenant under Section 21, the Prescribed Authority has to examine whether their exists relationship of landlord or tenant between the parties or not; whether need of the landlord is bona fide or not; and in case, the premises is released in favour of the landlord, who would suffer greater hardship. In case, the petitioner is permitted to be impleaded in the appeal, the issue sought to be raised by him would necessitate an enquiry into the title of the petitioner, and that too for the first time in appeal, which could not be permitted. In case, the petitioner was aggrieved by the release order, it was always open to it to challenge the release order by filing separate appeal under Section 22 of the Act or by instituting a civil suit for establishment of its right.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality in the view taken by the Appellate Authority in rejecting the impleadment application as well as review application. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 28.11.2018 AM/-