- (1.) SNDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 9-5-1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent No, 1 allowing the amendment application filed by the landlord-respondent whereby Om Prakash, son of deceased Radhey Shyam Bhargava, has been sought to be impleaded.
(2.) MOHAMMED Farooq, respondent No. 2, plad an application under Sec. 21 (1) (a) and (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that one Bhagwan Das was let out the shop in question by his father. Subsequently, Radhey Shyam Bhargava, opposite party No. 2 in the application, started paying rent. During the pendency of proceedings Radhey Shyam Bhargava died on 25-11-1991. The landlord-respondent filed an application for amendment of the release application by adding the name of Hari Shankar Bhargava, son of Sri Radhey Shyam Bhargava. This application was opposed by petitioner No. 2 on the ground that the application was belated and there were five daughters of the deceased Radhey Shyam Bhargava who have not been impleaded as parties in the release application. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent vide order dated 9-5-1995 holding that the applica tion filed by the landlord- respondent was maintainable. The petitioner has challenged this order in the instant writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Rule 25 of the rules framed under the Act the limitation for filing substitution application is only one month from the date of death of such person who is a party in the proceeding. The delay itself cannot be a ground for rejection of application for substitution adding hsirs of the deceased person who was a party in the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act, A Division Bench of this Court in Subhash Chandra Saxena v. Prescribed Authority, 1981 ARC 247, has held that Rule 25 of the rules framed under the Act provided a period of the month for making an application for substitution for bringing on record the legal representation of the deceased respondent. This rule, however, does not state anywhere effect if such application is not made. There is no provision which indicates that the proceedings will abate if no application is made within a month of the date of death of a party. This provision is only directive. In view of the said decision the mere fact that there was a delay in filing applica tion for impleadment of the heirs of the deceased opposite party, it was not liable to be rejected. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Radhey Shyam Bhargava, deceased opposite party No. 2, had left five daugh ters and they were not impleaded as parties, it is urged that the accommoda tion in question is non-residential and according to the definition of the tenant as given in Suction 3 (a) of the Act in case of non-residential building all the heirs of the deceased will merit the right of tenancy. The substitution appli cation has to be decided keeping in view of the definition given in the said section as held in Om Prakash Sharma v. IX Additional District Judge, Lucknow 1986 (1) ARC 402.
(3.) THE petitioners have neither disclosed the names of the daughters of the deceased Radhey Shyam Bhargava nor they have anywhere stated that they are carrying on business in the shop in question. In case they are not carrying on business alongwith the son of Radhey Shyam Bhargava there may be impli ed surrender of their tenancy. la Abdul Sattar v. IV Additional District Judge, Allahabad, 1994 (1) ARC 177, it has been held that there may be implied sur render of tenancy which depends upon various facts and circumstances. Petitioner No. 2, in the application, has not stated anywhere that his sisters are carrying on business alongwith him in the shop in question. In view of the above the order passed by respondent No. 2 does not suffer from any manifest error of law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;