AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
This petition which has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of the proceedings under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 i.e. Act of 13 of 1972 (from hereinafter referred to as the "Act").
The landlord moved an application under Section 21 of the Act for release of the premises in his favour. This application filed before the Prescribed Authority was allowed vide order dated 25.10.2016. Against which the tenant - Late Narendra Lal Shah filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the District Judge, Nainital which was thereafter transferred to 1st Additional District Judge and registered as Rent Control Appeal No.17 of 2016.
During the pendency of the appeal, the tenant passed away on 23.02.2017. Thereafter his wife and his two sons, namely, Smt. Pushpa Sah, Bhaskar Sah and Santosh Sah respectively claiming themselves to be the legal heirs and on whom the tenancy devolved, moved an application for their substitution before the court below on 20.03.2017 which was allowed by the court below on 21.03.2017.
The matter is still pending consideration before the appellate court. Meanwhile, the present petitioner who is daughter of tenant Late Narendra Lal Shah moved an application for her impleadment on 18.07.2019 after two years and five months after death of her father i.e. Late Narendra Lal Shah.
The petitioner contends that she is also a legal heir and has a right on the property.
In her application it has nowhere been stated by the petitioner that she resides in the said premises which was under the tenancy of her father. Apparently this application has been filed by her purely to dilate the proceedings and an inference can also be drawn, as has been rightly noticed by the lower appellate court that this has been done in order to benefit the tenant with intention to delay the proceedings.
This application has absolutely no substance. This is so because what the proceedings are for are not regarding the ownership of the property. It is merely proceedings regarding the tenancy on the property which depends upon the landlord and tenant relationship and nothing more the petitioner was never a tenant on the premises. No prejudice has been caused to the present petitioner.
The writ petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine with a direction to the court concerned that it is a matter of some concern that the appeal itself is pending for the last more than two years which should have not been done as per the law. Let the matter proceed as expeditiously as possible, if possible on day-to-day basis so that matter be expedited as early as possible.
The Registrar General of this Court is hereby directed to send a copy of this order to the court below for onward compliance.