- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11-1-1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the application of the landlord-respondent No. 2, under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regula tion of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order dated 8-2-1996 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order.
(2.) THE petitioner is tenant of premises in question situate at Dhartawala, Panditwadi, Prem Nagar, Dehradun consisting of two rooms, verandah, Bathroom, Kitchen etc. Jaimal Singh, father of respondent No. 2, was the landlord. He filed an application for release of the disputed house in the year 1983 on the allegation that he was residing as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 130 consisting of one room in House No. 63-B, Raipur Road, Dehradun. His family consisted of himself, his wife, his son Rajendra Singh (respondent No. 2) and daughter Km. Jitender Kaur. It was stated by him that Rajendra Singh was married on 24-4-1983 and after his marriage additional accommodation was required. It was further stated that his daughter Jitender Kaur was practising as an advocate and requires additional accommodation. Jaimal Singh, father of respondent No. 2, died on 24-1-1994. Respondent No. 2 filed an application on 8-4-1994 for his substitution on the allegation that his father has executed a Will by which he had bequeathed to him the disputed property. He further, in the same application, put forward his name stating that he has two sons aged about 9 and 7 years and they require additional accommodation. The petitioner filed objection that the application was barred by time as under Rule 25 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 the application for substitution should have been filed within thirty days. He also filed additional objection stating that no amendment in the application already filed u/s. 21 (1) (a) of the Act can be permitted by an heir of the deceased. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objection of the petitioner by order dated 16-11-1994 holding that the application for substitution could have been filed within ninety days. The petitioner filed additional written statement on 30-11-1994 and it was stated that respondent No. 2 had purchased Premises No. 1/2, Tilak Road, Dehradun and does not require the accommodation in question. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 had concealed the accommodation which was in his possession. The Prescribed Authority appointed a Commissioner to inspect Premises No. 1/2, Tilak Road, Deh radun as well as the accommodation in House No. 63, Rajpur Road, Dehradun which was under the occupation of respondent No. 2 as tenant and also the disputed accommodation. The Prescribed Authority found that Premises No. 1/2, Tilak Road, Dehradun was a commercial accommodation. Respondent No. 2 was residing in one room as a tenant in House No. 63, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. The need of respondent No. 2 was found bona fide and genuine and on comparative hardship it was found that in case the application of respondent No. 2 is rejected he would suffer greater hardship. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority and respondent No. 1 has dismissed the appeal by order dated 8-2-1996.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that substitution application should have been filed within thirty days from the date of the death of the landlord. Respon dent No. 2 had filed substitution application aftera delay of one month and eleven days. It is urged that the view taken by the Prescribed Authority that the substitution application could be filed within ninty days was erroneous in law. In Subhas Chandra Saxena v. Prescribed Authority (Rent Control) Cum Hnd Addl. Civil Judge, Kanpur and Ors. , 1981 A. R. C. 247, a Division Bench of this Court held that Rule 25 of the rules framed under the Act provides a period of one month for making an application for substitution for bringing on record the legal repre sentatives of a deceased party. The rule, however, does not provide that proceedings will abate if no application is made within a month of the death of the party. Since the rule is silent in this regard the provisions of this rule are directive and not mandatory.;