N.N.Mithal - (1.) THIS petition is directed against an order passed in revision allowing application of landlord revisionist exempting him from taking recourse to substitute all the legal representatives of deceased respondent.
(2.) IT appears that the building in dispute had been allotted to Mohammad Aslam Khan which was challenged by the landlord by way of revision. During the pendency of the revision, the said allottee died- On an application being moved by the landlord for substituting the heirs, an objection was filed by the proposed heirs alleging that the application was beyond time and the revision should be dismissed as abated. At this stage, the landlord moved an application that he may be exempted from substituting the legal representatives inasmuch as it was not necessary in view of sub-section (4) of Section 34 of U. P. Act 13 of 1972. This application has been allowed. Aggrieved by this order, the proposed heirs have filed this petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears to me that the court below was right in taking the view that sub-section (4) of Section 34 applied only when the question of substitution arises in a proceeding for determination of standard rent and for eviction of tenant from any building. This, however, does not deprive a party claiming to be affected by a proceeding to seek impleadment by taking recourse to Rule 22 ( f ). Since the petitioners have not done so, the order under challenge cannot be said to be illegal. In the light of the observations made above, the petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage. It is left open to the petitioners to apply for impleadment before the revisional court and I have no doubt that such a request when made will be considered on merits.
(3.) A certified copy of the order may be made available to the learned counsel for the petitioners on payment of requisite charges within 24 hours.;