Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23604 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1642 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gopal And Another Respondent :- Sanjay Rastogi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar,Hriday Narayan Pandey Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri Hriday Narayan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioners, who are the sons of late Bhagirath, erstwhile tenant of the landlord/ respondent decree holders, have filed this petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, praying for interference in the order passed by the executing court dated 24.01.2025 rejecting the objections of the petitioners under Section 23 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the P.A. case was instituted for release of tenanted premises being P.A. Case No. 3 of 2019, Sanjay Rastogi v. Ashok Kumar which came to be allowed on 24.01.2020 of which the execution was pressed into under Section 23 of the Act, 1972. Petitioners raised objections on the ground that though they were sons of the erstwhile tenant late Bhagirath but after the death of Bhagirath all of them started their own business and ever since then petitioners have been continuing in possession over 3/4 of the building in question and have taken the plea of adverse possession also and also instituted a suit being No. 286 of 2024 seeking declaration of ownership rights qua building in question. It is further pleaded that 1/4 of the building to which Ashok Kumar was placed and against whom the release application was allowed. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner the order of release will not bind these petitioners. I have perused the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 23 of the Act, 1972 and the pleadings raised before the court below and even before this Court. It is admitted position to the petitioners that they are sons of late Bhagirath who was inducted as tenant of the building in question by late Satendra Pal, the predecessor in interest of the current landlord. Late Bhagirath died in the year 2005 and this is how the tenancy stood devolved upon the heirs as successors including the petitioners. Late Bhagirath at the time of his death was survived by his widow and four sons. Widow also died later on. Thus, it is clear that the tenancy was succeeded by hears of late Bhagirath. The release application was filed in respect of the building in question against one of the heirs which stood granted and this is how the objection is being raised that petitioners were not party. The Prescribed Authority has relied on decision of this Court in the case of Hajra Begum v. Ali & Others, 2012AHC187622 in which it has been held that in the event of joint tenancy/ co-tenancy, decree passed against one of the joint tenant will bind the other tenants as well. It has also been held that the joint tenants if entered into separate tenancy with a dependent business then of course they were necessary parties to the release application. But where the tenants inherited the tenancy from one common ancestor and there is no agreement to run their separate business then a release application could have been granted against one tenant would bind the other successor tenants also. Thus, in view of the above legal position and the fact that petitioners have succeeded tenancy from their father and there is no evidence available on record, nor shown to establish a fresh tenancy agreement between petitioners and landlord, the release order shall bind petitioners as well and, therefore, I do not find any manifest error in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority so as to exercise my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 19.2.2025 IrfanUddin Digitally signed by :- IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad