MANGAL SINGH Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Varanasi on an application of the petitioner in revision filed under' Section 18 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [in short 'Act') wherein the petitioner claimed that revision stands abated for want of substitution of legal representatives of Bal Mukund Singh, who was an opposite party in revision before Court below. The petitioner claims himself as legal representative as well as son of Bal Mukund Singh.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner argued that proceedings in revision abated as no application for substituting the legal representatives of Bal Mukund was moved within one month from the date of his death, as contemplated under Rule 25 (1) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules. 1972. The learned counsel relied on the cases of Ram Naresh Tripathi v. IInd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur, 1980 AWC 558 and Smt. Sebra v. District Judge, Meerut, 1983 AWC 109. In support of his argument.

(3.) Rule 25 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 has been framed keeping in view Section 34 (4) of the Act. Section 34 (4) of the Act is as follows : "34. Powers of various authorities and procedure to be followed : X X X X (4) Where any party to any proceeding for the determination of standard rent of or for eviction from a building dies during the pendency of the proceeding, may continue after bringing on the record : (a) in the case of the landlord or tenant, his heirs or legal representatives : (b) in the case of an unauthorised occupant, any person claiming under him found in occupation of the building." On other hand Rule 25 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction] Rules. 1972 is as follows : "25. Bringing legal representatives on record : (1) Every application for substituting the names of the heirs or legal representatives, the claimants or occupants of any person who was a party to any proceedings under the Act and died during the pendency of the proceedings shall be preferred within one month from the date of the death of such person. (2) The application shall contain the names and addresses and other details of the heirs or legal representative and their relationship with the deceased and. be accompanied by any affidavit in its support, and thereupon, the application shall be decided after a summary inquiry by the authority concerned." From bare reading of Section 34 (4). It is apparent that this provision has been limited in its application to proceedings for determination of standard rent or for eviction from a building. Section 34 (4) does not cover allotment proceedings. The revision giving rise to this petition is a revision against an allotment order passed under Section 16 of the Act whereby the application of Late Bal Mukund Singh for allotment of shop was allowed. As allotment proceedings happens to be proceedings different from those which are proceedings for determination of standard renl or eviction under the Act. Section 34 (4) is to be considered inapplicable to revision filed against an order allotting the shop in question. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that the revision abated is liable to be rejected keeping in view that the language of Section 34 (4) cannot be extended to it. This takes us to case law cited by learned counsel for petitioner.