RAVINDRA PRAKASH Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is tenant of the accommodation in question, has challenged the order dated 16th February, 2005 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in P.A. Case No.05 of 2004 whereby a substitution application 20 -A filed by the respondent for substitution under Section 34 of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Act was allowed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the proposed heirs are not the heirs of the deceased tenant. The only question argued before me is that according to own statement of the landlord he had no knowledge of the death of the tenant in question and he acquired knowledge only when the application 15 -B was filed by the tenant. The application under Section 21 (1) of the Act stood already abated, therefore, an application which has already abated cannot be survived even after filling an application for substitution by the landlord and the application for substitution is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. This argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of provisions of Section 38 of the Act which reads as under:

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that there is any provision under the Act or the Rules which provides that in case no steps for substitution is taken the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act stands abated. In the absence of any provision against abatement the proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) stood abated as no steps were taken by the landlord for substitution in accordance with law. No other argument has been advanced.