Sudhir Narain Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.2.1998 passed by respondent No. 1. The landlord respondent No. 2 filed application for release of the disputed accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application. The father of the petitioners filed appeal against the said judgment before the District Judge. During the pendency of appeal appellant (father of the petitioners) died. The petitioners filed an application for substitution. This application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 9.2.98.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The substitution application has been rejected on the ground that the married daughters are not the heirs of the disputed accommodation and therefore he rejected the application. The contention of the petitioner is that the accommodation was also taken for residential purpose. Without going into the controversy as to whether the accommodation was let out for residential purpose but for prosecution of the appeal they should have been impleaded as party in the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the amendment sought in the pleadings are not to be permitted by the proposed heirs. The court has not passed any order in respect of the amendment of the pleadings. This question does not arise at this stage. In view of the above the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 9.2.98 is hereby quashed. The application for substitution of the heirs of the deceased Munni Lal is allowed without going into the controversy regarding the merits of the case. The appeal shall be decided within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the appellate court.;