V.K Khanna, J.:— This Writ petition has been filed against the order of the District Judge, Farrukhabad dated 9-9-1986 rejecting the petitioner's application for impleading him as a party in a pending Rent Control Appeal filed by the tenant Siya Ram against the decision of the Prescribed Authority. An application has been moved by the petitioner on the ground that by a registered sale-deed dated 15-3-1985, the petitioner has purchased ¼ ahare in the property in dispute and, thus, has become its co-sharer. It is on this ground that the petitioner has sought impleadment in the pending appeal. The district Judge under the impugned order has rejected the application on the ground that as only a share of the property in dispute has been purchased, there would not be merger within the meaning of Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act. The application has been accordingly rejected.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has however urged that the petitioner admittedly having become a co-sharer to the property in dispute is now a necessary party to the proceedings. I have heard the learned Counsel for the respondents Shri S.O.P Agarwal.
3. After carefully considering the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the order of the District Judge rejecting the application filed by the petitioner is liable to be quashed. There cannot be any iota of doubt that the petitioner in view of the registered sale-deed has now become a co-sharer in the property in dispute and is thus a necessary party to the proceedings. The petitioner's applications accordingly allowed and the petitioner shall be impleaded as one of the respondents in the appeal. The Appellate Court shall now dispose of the appeal expeditiously.
4. A certified copy of this order shall be given to the learned Counsel for the parties within 48 hours on payment of ususal charges.
5. Petition allowed.
Comments