J.C.Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard petitioner's Counsel.
(2.) This is tenant's petition. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.3.1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority whereby the substitution application moved by the landlord for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased-landlord have been allowed. It would appear that during the pendency of proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, two of the landlords died and applications for bringing on record their legal heirs were moved. As far as the application for substitution in respect of the death of petitioner No. 5 was concerned, the legal heirs who were to be substituted were already on record. Another application was moved after the death of petitioner No. 9 and application for bringing his legal heirs on record was moved after one month and it is argued by the petitioner's Counsel that under Rule 25 the limitation for moving an application for substitution is only one month. The Prescribed Authority by the impugned order has allowed substitution application after condoning the delay. There is no provision of abatement in such proceedings. However, the question whether the Prescribed Authority was justified in condoning the delay or not may be agitated by the petitioner before the Supreme Court if at all such an occasion arises. As far as this writ petition is concerned, this Court is not inclined to admit the same as it has been directed against an order passed at intermediate stage of the proceedings with these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.;