- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 11-7-1990 passed by the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 2, allowing the application filed by respondent No. 1 for substitution and making necessary amendment in the application.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Smt. Brahmo Devi, the landlady, filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of the disputed commercial accommodation on the allegation that she wants to do her separate business alongwith her son-in-law. THE petitioner contested the release application. During the pendency of the application the landlady expired on 26-4-1990. Respondent No. 1, one of her sons, filed an application for amendment of the application under Section 21 of the Act stating that Smt. Brahmo Devi had executed a Will dated 26-4-1990 in his favour. It was stated that he is an heir and legal representative of late Smt. Brahmo Devi and requires the shop in question for his own purpose. Respondent No. 2 allowed the application by order dated 11-7- 1990. THE petitioner has challenged this order in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the release application was filed by Smt. Brahmo Devi on the allegation that she needed the accommodation in question for carrying on business but as she has died, the application filed by her no longer can be prosecuted by any of the heirs. He has placed reliance upon the decision Virendra Nath v. VI Additional District Judge, Moradabad, 1981 ARC 191 wherein the landlord had filed an application for release under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for his personal bona fide need for residential purpose. The Prescribed Authority had allowed the application. The tenant filed an appeal. The appeal was partly allowed. The tenant, however, filed writ petition against the order of the Appellate Authority. The landlord also filed writ petition. In the writ petition filed by the landlord no substitution application was made and that writ petition was dismissed. The tenant in his own writ petition deleted the name of the landlord. The heirs did not move an application to seek the release on the basis of their requirement. In these circumstances the Court held that as the landlord has died the need, on which the application was filed, no longer subsists and the writ petition has become infructuous. It was, however, made clear that it would be open to the heirs of the landlord to make application for release if they require the accommodation in question. This case has no application to the facts of the present case. The application under Section 21 (l) (a) of the Act has yet not been disposed of. The landlady died during the pendency of the application and respondent No. 2 has filed an application for amendment of the application not only for seeking substitution but also setting up his own need. Sub-section (7) of Section 21 of the Act provides that where during the pendency of an application under clause (a) of sub-section (1) the landlord dies his legal representative shall be entitled to prosecute such application, further on the basis of their own need in substitution of the need of the deceased. This provision clearly contemplates the situation where the landlord dies and his heirs are entitled to prosecute the application on the basis of the need.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed the application claiming his right to substitution as well as stated that he requires the shop in question to carry on the business. 6. In view of the above there is no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. 7. As the matter is quite old, the Prescribed Authority is directed to dispose of the application within four months. Petition dismissed. .;