- (1.) Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.5.2010 passed by the opposite party No. i.e. Special Judge (Ayodhya Prakaran)/Additional District Judge, Lucknow; whereby the application "18-C" moved by the opposite parties 2 to 4 for substitution of their names in place of deceased Horilal has been allowed on the ground that deceased in compliance of original order of rent appeal has been evicted from the shop in question.
(2.) The deceased moved application for re-entry, which was adjudicated upon by the prescribed authority and rejected by means of order dated 29.2.2008. The deceased challenging the said order filed rent appeal. During the pendency of the said application the deceased Horilal died leaving behind opposite parties 2 to 4. Opposite party No. 2 is employed in Sahara India, Lucknow and opposite party No. 3 in Sonalika Tractor Company. It is further submitted that substitution of legal representative under section 34(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is permitted only two proceedings--(i) Proceeding for the determination of standard rent (ii) Proceeding for eviction from a building; whereas the present proceeding does not belong to the aforesaid proceeding, therefore, the application for substitution is not maintainable.
(3.) In support of his contentions the learned Counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Allahabad Rent Case 1978, Mrs. Ratna Prasad v. The VIIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others.;