RAM LALI Vs. 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been directed against the Order dated 11 -12 -1990 passed by the Prescribed Authority/1st Addl. Civil Judge Lucknow, on an application for substitution under Rule 25(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting and Eviction) Rules. The application for substitution moved by the opposite party No. 2 has not only been allowed after the condonation of delay in moving the same by the Prescribed Authority, he has also ordered that all sons of the deceased tenant shall be brought on record. The petitioner No. 1 is the widow and the petitioner No. 2 is the son of the deceased tenant. The petitioner No. 1 was sought to be substituted. The facts are that the landlord opposite party No. 2 had preferred an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the above mentioned Act before the Prescribed Authority on 3 -4 -1987 against the original tenant Sri Bhagwati Prasad Srivastava and his son Pateshwari Prasad Srivastava who is petitioner No. 2. The case was registered as P.A. case No. 37 of 1987. During the pendency of the proceedings Bhagwati Prasad Srivastava the tenant died on 22 -5 -1987 The landlord, opposite party No. 2 moved an application for substitution on 7 -7 -1987 seeking to substitute petitioner No. 1. The application was thus beyond time by seven days. The land -lord's application for substitution was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner filed an objection against the substitution application on 11 -7 -1988 saying that the application is beyond time and that it was not accompanied by any affidavit. It was also said that the owner landlord has not sought substitution of his heir. The owner landlord then moved an application for condonation of delay on 21 -9 -1988. It was supported by an affidavit. This application was also opposed by the petitioner who preferred an objection on 20 -4 -1989. In this objection it was said that the application for release has abated. No application for setting aside abatement has been moved and as such the application is liable to be dismissed as having abated. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties' Counsel has condoned the delay, ordered substitution of not only the petitioner 1 but also sons as heir of the deceased tenant vide order dated 11 -12 -1990. It is this order which has been impugned in the writ petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel' for the petitioner has argued that the Prescribed Authority has committed material illegality in not abating the proceedings and permitting the substitution of the heir after condoning the delay. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that there is nothing in the Rule 25 to indicate that the proceedings will abate if no application is made within the period prescribed under the rule for moving the substitution application. According to him the provisions of the rule in this regard are directory and we cannot import the provisions under Order 22 of Rule 3(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. In support of this contention 'he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in Subhash Chandra v. Prescribed Authority, : 1981 (7) ALR 353.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority has condoned the delay of seven days in moving the application and has ordered substitution of not only the petitioner No. 1 but also other sons of the deceased tenant. The prescribed Authority, if while allowing the application has also directed the substitution of the remaining heir of the deceased tenant, has not acted without jurisdiction. It is because the estate of the deceased tenant was being sufficiently represented by his legal representative, the petitioner No. 2. As such the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that while permitting the substitution of the two sons and legal representatives of the deceased tenant he has acted with material irregularity cannot be accepted. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is dismissed with costs. Interim, order shall stand discharged and it is provided that the Prescribed Authority shall dispose of the applications expeditiously say within a period of three months from the date the parties appear before him. The parties are directed to appear before the Prescribed Authority on 15 -3 -1993.