WPMS/213/2007
2022 Latest Caselaw 2571 UK

               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.           or proceedings
      Date                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No           or directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                 WPMS 1700/2011
                                 With
                                 WPMS 213/2007
                                 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. A.N. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate, for the respondents.

In both writ petitions, petitioner has moved application for impleadment of Cantonment Board, Bareilly.

Vide judgment and order dated 8.3.2007 (impugned in WPMS/213/2007), passed by the appellate authority under Section 22 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, learned District Judge has allowed the release application filed by the landlord. It is not in dispute that petitioner had admitted respondent to be his landlord. In the impleadment applications, he contends that since the property belongs to the Cantonment Board, therefore, respondent is not the owner of the property. Hence, respondent ought not to have filed application for release of the building.

In the humble opinion of this Court, impleadment applications have to be rejected as the issue raised in these applications cannot be decided in proceedings under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. While deciding release application, the Prescribed Authority has to see as to whether any relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. Such relationship was admitted by the petitioner in his written statement. Thus, now, he cannot turn around and question the status of the respondent.

        Accordingly,          impleadment
applications       (IA/9577/2021      and

IA/3431/2021) are rejected.

List on 20.10.2022 after fresh matters.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 22.8.2022 Pr