Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130103 Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8756 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Shobha Agrawal And Another Respondent :- Dr. Abdul Kayum And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Narendra Mohan/Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.1 is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Narendra Mohan/Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no.1. 3. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding for release has been initiated under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13/1972 by the landlord/respondent no.1 which was registered as P.A. Case No.43/2018. In the aforementioned case, petitioners were impleaded as opposite parties nos. 1 & 2. During the pendency of the aforementioned proceeding, application for impleadment dated 19.10.2024 has been filed by respondent no.2/ Devendra Kumar Agrawal. Against the aforementioned application, an objection dated 19.1.2025 was filed on behalf of the petitioners, stating that application should be rejected as the application has been filed in collusion with the landlord. The prescribed authority under the impugned order dated 19.4.2025 has rejected the objection of the petitioners and allowed the application 36 A- 2 dated 19.10.2024, impleading respondent no.2/Devendra Kumar Agrawal as party in the proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13/1972. Hence, this petition for the following relief:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and quash the order dated 19.4.2025 passed by Prescribed Authority/Judge, Small Cause Court, Jhansi in P.A. Case No.43/2018 (Dr. Abdul Kayum vs. Smt. Shobha Agrawal) (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition)." 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13/1972, petitioners were impleaded as opposite parties who are the tenant of the accommodation. He submitted that during pendency of the proceeding, 1st impleadment was filed by respondent no.3/Deepak Agrawal. He submitted that another impleadment has been filed by respondent no.2/Devendra Kumar Agrawal in collusion with the landlord and the prescribed authority has allowed the application dated 19.10.2024 which is wholly illegal. He submitted that the impugned order should be set aside and the application filed by respondent no.2/Devendra Kumar Agrawal should be rejected. He also submitted that perusal of the two impleadment applications, one filed by respondent no.3/Deepak Agrawal and another filed by respondent no.2/Devendra Kumar Agrawal fully demonstrate that they are not making the payment of rent to the landlord, as such, they cannot be impleaded in the proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13/1972. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that there is no illegality in the order impugned by which the impleadment application has been allowed by the authority in the proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13/1972. He submitted that the instant petition has been filed in order to delay the disposal of the proceeding which has been initiated by the landlord/respondent no.1 for release of the accommodation. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13/1972 is pending before the prescribed authority. There is also no dispute about the fact that the impleadment application filed by respondent no.2 has been allowed under the impugned order dated 19.4.2025. 8. The perusal of the order impugned dated 19.4.2025, allowing the impleadment application of respondent no.2/Devendra Kumar Agrawal, demonstrate that there is no illegality in the order, impleading the party concerned in the proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13/1972. 9. It is also material to mention that in the release application filed by landlord, petitioners are opposite parties, as such, impleadment of respondent no.2 in the release proceeding will not affect the right of petitioners in any manner, accordingly, petitioners cannot challenge the order of impleadment passed in respect to respondent no.2. 10. No interference is required against the impugned order dated 19.4.2025 passed by prescribed authority, allowing the impleadment application filed by respondent no.2. 11. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 4.8.2025/C.Prakash Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad