YASHODA JAUHARI Vs. IST ADDL DISTT JUDGE NAINITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner does not want to press this writ petition. In this writ petition a very detailed order was passed on 2-4-1999.

(2.) IT is necessary to pass orders on the substitution application filed by the petitioner.

(3.) THERE is another application dated 28-8-1998 has been filed for abating the writ petition on the ground that Sri Braj Nandan Bhatnagar. Respondent No. 2 has died on 20-10-1998 and his heirs has not been substituted and the writ petition dis missed as -abated. THEREafter the petitioner filed an application on 27-9-1998 for substituting the heirs of the deceased-respondent No. 2 and for con doning the delay. Counter affidavit has also been filed alongwith application. I have already dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is no more and the persons who have filed sub stitution application are not tenants after death of the erstwhile tenant in view of Section 3 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972. In view of this it is not necessary to pass any detailed order in this application. Suffice to say, there is no suf ficient ground to condone the delay in filing the application for substitution of respondent No. 2. The writ petition is also liable to be abated on this ground.