BADRI PRASAD DAYA RAM Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 11-7-1990 passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2, allowing the application filed by respondent No. 1 for substitution and making necessary amendment in the application.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Smt. Brahmo Devi, the landlady, filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the disputed commercial accommodation on the allegation that she wants to do her separate business alongwith her son-in-law. THE petitioner contested the release application. During the pendency of the application the landlady expired on 26-4-1990. Respondent No. 1, one of her sons, filed an application for amendment of the application under Section 21 of the Act stating that Smt. Brahmo Devi had executed a Will dated 26-4-1990 in his favour. It was stated that he is an heir and legal representative of late Smt. Brahmo Devi and requires the shop in question for his own purpose. Respondent No. 2 allowed the application by order dated 11-7- 1990. THE petitioner has challenged this order in the writ petition.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed the application claiming his right to substitution as well as stated that he requires the shop in question to carry on the business. 6. In view of the above there is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. 7. As the matter is quite old, the Prescribed Authority is directed to dispose of the application within four months. Petition dismissed. .