Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25189 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Rekha Rani And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through District Magistrate, Jhansi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Lohia,Annapurna Devi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Agrawal
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 28/2016 rejecting the application of the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
Respondent No. 2 (for short 'the landlord') filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against Smt. Krishnawati (since deceased) and her two sons. It was registered as P.A. Case No. 28/2016. The landlord specifically asserted that the demised premises is required for his personal need, therefore, it should be released in his favour.
During pendency of the release application, the petitioners filed separate applications seeking their impleadent on the ground that they are the tenant of the premises in respect of which release application was filed. Petitioner No. 1 is widowed daughter-in-law of deceased Krishnawati and petitioner No. 2 is widowed daughter of deceased Krishnawati. The original tenant of the premises was Diwan Chand Verma, husband of deceased Krishnawati.
The Prescribed Authority rejected the impleadment application relying on judgment of Supreme Court in H.C. Pandey Versus G.C. Paul, 1989 SCC (3) 77, wherein, the Supreme Court has held that after the death of the original tenant, the tenancy which devolves on his heirs is a single tenancy. There is no division of the premises or of the rent payable. In other words, the heirs thus succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. Consequently, eviction proceedings filed even against one of the joint tenants would be maintainable.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are residing in the demised premises since a long time. However, he does not dispute that the petitioners are joint tenants along with the persons against whom release application was filed. They are hotly contesting the proceedings by filing written statement and other applications. The petitioners seek impleadment, being joint tenants, and not on basis of any other independent right. They can also lead evidence in the case pointing out their hardship, even if they are not party. Such being the position, this Court does not find any merit in the instant petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 29.11.2018 AM/-