No login required. Choose a mode and start practising instantly.
A High Court judgment extract is ready. Choose your duration — you'll see the original formatted text on one side and type on the other, exactly like the real test.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:142875
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7436 of 2026
Murti Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Gopal Ki Bagiya City Jhansi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Smt. Jyoti Gangwani And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s): Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, Vinay Kumar Tiwari, Vineet Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s): Rishabh Agarwal
AFR
Court No. - 35
HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1- Heard Sri Rajendra Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri Rishabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent.
2- By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the Rent Tribunal in Rent Appeal No. 05 of 2026 (Smt. Jyoti Gangwani vs. Vinod Rawat & another), whereby the appellate authority has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent-landlord and has set aside the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Rent Authority in Rent Case No. 110 of 2024, whereby the application moved by the present petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment had been allowed.
3- A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the Rent Tribunal has held that the proceedings instituted by the respondent-landlord under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 are confined to adjudication of the landlord-tenant dispute arising between the parties to the tenancy and are limited to consideration of the grounds pleaded in support of the prayer for eviction. The Tribunal has further recorded that the petitioner, claiming to be a third party, sought impleadment solely for the purpose of disputing the title and ownership of the respondent-landlord over the premises in question. Such a dispute, according to the Tribunal, falls wholly outside the scope of the proceedings contemplated under the Act of 2021 and cannot be permitted to be introduced in proceedings which are intended to determine only the rights and obligations arising out of the relationship of landlord and tenant. On the aforesaid reasoning, the Tribunal has concluded that the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the rent proceedings and, consequently, the order of the Rent Authority permitting impleadment was liable to be set aside.
4- When the matter was taken up, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was unable to dispute the settled legal position that proceedings under Section 21(2)(b) of the Act of 2021 do not contemplate adjudication upon complicated questions relating to title or ownership of the premises and that any rival claim to ownership has to be agitated before the competent forum in appropriately instituted proceedings. It has also not been disputed that a third party claiming an independent right adverse to the landlord cannot insist upon being impleaded in eviction proceedings merely to canvass questions of title, which are wholly foreign to the limited scope of such proceedings.
5- In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly does not dispute that the impugned order does not suffer from any patent jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, or perversity warranting exercise.