When it was the case of the applicant that a will was executed in favour of Shri Thakur Radha Krishanji Maharaj by deceased Ramesh Chand Tewari, the applicant ought to be joined as party respondent.
Kamla Devi and another against Raj Pal.
The said order is challenged in the present appeal.
The tenant, however, wanted to delay the proceedings on one ground or the other.
Kamla Devi who also died during the pendency of the proceedings and father of the appellant herein, was owner of the property in question.
By the said order, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant companyfirming the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Aligarh on October 29, 1996 allowing the application of third party to be joined as respondent in U.P.U.B. Case No.
Accordingly, the prayer for impleadment was allowed.
19 of 1989 instituted by Smt.
Kamla Devi.
Since they wanted the premises for business of Anurag, son of Kamla Devi and brother of appellant herein, they initiated proceedings for getting the property vacated from occupation of tenant in accordance with Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The Prescribed Authority, however, by an order dated October 29, 1996, allowed the application observing that the companyrt was required to see whether Kamla Devi was the owner of the property after the death of Ramesh Chand Tewari or Thakur Radha Krishanji Maharaj had become owner thereof.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the appellant preferred Miscellaneous Writ Petition which also came to be dismissed by the High Court.
Upon the death of Ramesh Chand Tewari, the property was inherited by the appellant and her mother Smt.
It was let out to one Raj Pal.
Thus, they became the owners.
The proceedings were initiated in 1992.
In the circumstances, Thakur Radha Krishnaji Maharaj Virajman Mandir, through its Secretary, Banwari Lal Pandey made an application for impleadment as party respondent alleging that deceased Ramesh Chand Tewari, father of the appellant, had executed a will on February 07, 1978 in favour of Thakur Radha Krishanji Maharaj bequeathing the property to the temple and hence it ought to be joined as party respondent.
The appellants companytested the application companytending that numbersuch will was executed by the deceased in favour of temple and the documents were false and fabricated.
In 1993, the case came up for hearing.
It was also companytended that the applicant was number necessary party and hence his application was number maintainable.
K. Thakker, J. Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
36462 of 1996 dated September 19, 2002.
The facts as stated by the appellants are that one Ramesh Chand Tewari since deceased husband of Smt.
