SUDHIR NARAIN, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.10.1995, whereby the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts in dispute are that Radhey Shyam Dwivedi father of petitioners 1, 3 and 4 and husband of the petitioner No. 2, was a tenant of shop No. 81/1 situate at Gopal Ganj, Orai, District Jalaun. The respondent No. 3 filed application for release of the disputed shop under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of his personal need. Late Sri Radhey Shyam Dwivedi contested the said application and denied that the need of respondent No. 3 was bona fide with regard to shop in question. The Prescribed Authority allowed the said application on 26.6.1994 on the finding that the need of respondent No. 3 for the shop in question was bona fide and genuine. The tenant Radhey Shyam Dwivedi, filed Rent Appeal No. 11 of 1994 against the order of the Prescribed Authority. During pendency of the appeal, Radhey Shyam Dwivedi, died on 7.7.1995. The petitioners filed an application on 23.8.1995 for substitution stating that they are heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, Radhey Shyam Dwivedi. Petitioner No. 2 is widow and petitioners 1, 3 and 4 are sons of the Radhey Shyam Dwivedi. Respondent No. 3 filed objection stating that the application was barred by time. On 6.10.1995, petitioner filed application to condone the delay. It was stated that the application for substitution was drafted by his counsel on 31.7.1995 but his clerk filed it before the Court on 23.8.1995, as he was under misimpression that the limitation for filing substitution application was ninety days. Dr. Purushottam Das Dwivedi, petitioner No. 1 filed an affidavit in support of the application. Respondent No. 1 has rejected the application filed for condonation of delay and substitution application by order dated 31.10.1995. This order has been challenged in this petition.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No. 1 has taken the view that the application for substitution should have been filed within thirty days from the date of death of the deceased-tenant under Rule 25 of the rules framed under the Act and in case, the application is not filed within the period of limitation, the appeal shall abate.;