DEENA NATH Vs. SPL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. B. Srivastava, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioners-tenants have sought quashing of an order dated 22-1-1986 of the prescribed Authority, Mirazapur allowing release of accommodation in favour of the respondent No. 3-landlord, his order dated 11-3-1991 abating the petitioners' application for recall of the said order of release, and order dated 22-8-1984 of the Additional District Judge, Mirzapur rejecting the petitioners' appeal.

(2.) IT appears a release application was filed by the respondent No. 3 in respect of shop in the tenancy of Raghunath, the father of the petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 2, on the ground of personal need. IT appears the tenant did not put in appearance before the prescribed Authority and the latter allowed the release application of the respondent. Subsequently the tenant Raghunath moved an application for setting saide the said order. During the pendency of the same Raghunath died on 27-7- 1990 but on steps were taken by his legal representatives of the petitioners for substitution and by order dated 11-8-1991 the application for setting aside the decree was abated. The peti tioners preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 23-8-1994 as time barred.

(3.) THE next contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC, for recall of the release order could not have been abated and that his counsel acted against his interest in conceding before the court below about abatement. THE accusation against the counsel is also correct because what he conceded was that 90 days had passed and no substitution application has been moved. To say that the counsel committed a professional misconduct by not opposing the abatement is also unsustainable. In fact, such opposition would have amounted to not acting in the aid of due process of law.