HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, NAINITAL Writ Petition No.440 of 2010 (M/S) Krishan Muti Bhatt S/o late Ram Murti Bhatt ……… Petitioner Versus Smt. Shanti Devi & another ……… Respondents Dated:- 05th July, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Lok Pal Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Narendra Bali, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Petitioner Krishan Murti Bhatt and opposite party no.1 Smt. Shanti Devi are alleged to be co-landlords. A partition suit filed by the father of the petitioner was decreed on 13th January, 1993 and, ultimately in the execution proceedings, the property in question has gone into the share of opposite party no.1 Smt. Shanti Devi. It has been alleged that the petitioner has preferred an appeal which is pending consideration. This property is a shop in which Kailash Pandey respondent no.2 is a tenant. The opposite party no.1 has filed an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 before the prescribed authority being P.A. Case No.16/2006 for the release of the shop in her favour after eviction of respondent no.2. Similarly, the petitioner has also filed an application as P.A. Case No.1/2007 for eviction of respondent no.2 and the release of the shop in his favour. Notwithstanding the pendency of the application for release of the shop, the petitioner has also moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for impleadment as a necessary party. This application has been rejected by the court below against which the present writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that the release application of the petitioner being P.A. Case No.1/2007 has been dismissed for want of prosecution. The learned counsel for the 2 petitioner, however, submits that a restoration application is pending consideration. In the light of the aforesaid, the court is of the opinion that in the event, the application is allowed and the P.A. Case of the petitioner is restored to its original number, the release application of the petitioner as well as of the opposite party no.1 should be heard and decided together since the release is against a common tenant. Consequently, it is irrelevant for the court to consider the validity and legality of the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. In view of the aforesaid, without going into the validity of the application of the petitioner and without going into the legality of the order passed by the prescribed authority on that application, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the prescribed authority to consider the restoration application filed by the petitioner in P.A. Case No.1/2007 and decide the same within two weeks from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. In the event, P.A. Case No.1/2007 is restored, the prescribed authority will consolidate both the cases, namely, P.A. Case No.1/2007 and 16/2006 and will hear and decide the matter together, after hearing all the parties concerned within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 05.07.2010 LSR