2026:UHC:4600 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1752/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. In a release application filed under Section 21(1)(b) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972), filed by Jogendra Singh (respondent No. 1), petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC seeking his impleadment in the proceedings. 3. Petitioner contended that the tenant (Beena Kapoor) had executed a Will in his favour whereby the leasehold rights in respect of premises in question were bequeathed in his favour. 4. Learned Prescribed Authority (Civil Judge, Senior Division), Haridwar rejected the application filed by petitioner by holding that since the daughter of tenant (Beena Kapoor) is party to the proceeding, therefore petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party to the proceedings. 5. Petitioner has challenged the said order 2026:UHC:4600 by contending that the tenant had earlier executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner and later she executed a Will whereby tenancy rights were bequeathed in favour of the petitioner. Thus, it is contended that petitioner’s application deserves to be allowed and he should have been made a party to the release proceedings. 6. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.03.2026. 7. It is settled position in law that proceedings for release of a building are summary in nature, and disputed questions, including that of title, are not to be gone into in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972. 8. Whether the Will alleged to have been executed in favour of the petitioner is valid or otherwise can only be gone into in a regular civil suit, and Prescribed Authority exercising power under Section 21(1) of Act No. 13 of 1972 is not competent to go into these issues. 9. Even otherwise also, it is for the landlord to choose the person against whom the application for release of the building has to be filed. Since he has chosen the daughter 2026:UHC:4600 of late Beena Kapoor, therefore, petitioner cannot insist that he be also added as respondent in the release application. Thus, the reason given by learned Prescribed Authority for rejecting petitioner’s application cannot be faulted. 10. Thus, there is no scope for interference. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 09.06.2026 Mahinder/