Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) SRI Ajeet Kumar Jain filed an application under Section 21(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) for release of the shop against one Sri Anant Prasad Khanna, father of the petitioner and respondent No. 2. These proceedings were ordered to be proceeded ex -parte on 1.2.1995. This order was recalled by the Prescribed Authority on 22.2.1995. The Prescribed Authority again passed an order on 30.5.1995 to proceed ex -parte. Subsequently, he passed a conditional order on 8.8.1995 that if a written statement is filed by 24.8.1995 then the ex -parte proceedings will be recalled. No one appeared on behalf of Sri Anant Prasad Khanna on 24.8.1995. Thereafter, the case was adjourned and ultimately the application was allowed ex -parte on 14.9.1995. Thereafter Sri Anant Prasad Khanna filed an application on 18.3.1996 to set aside the ex -parte order dated 14.9.1995 and also filed an appeal before the Appellate Court alongwith the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. This application to condone the delay was dismissed on merits on 24.4.1997 and as such the appeal was also dismissed. The application filed by Sri Anant Prasad Khanna to set aside the ex -parte order dated 14.9.1995 was not decided. Subsequently, Sri Anant Prasad Khanna died on 24.2.1998 and his son Sri Pankaj Khanna (Respondent No. 2) filed an application for substitution, which was allowed on 3.4.1998. Thereafter the petitioner, who is a daughter of late Sri Anant Prasad Khanna and the real sister of Pankaj Khanna (Respondent No. 2) also filed an application on 4.5.1999 for impleadment. The Prescribed Authority by its impugned order dated 10.11.1999 has dismissed the application filed on 18.3.1996 by Late Sri Anant Prasad Khanna to set aside the ex -parte order dated 1.4.1995 but no orders have been passed on the substitution application filed by the petitioner. Hence the present writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Swapnil Kumar, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Tandon, Counsel for the caveator -respondent. The Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the premises in dispute is a shop and the petitioner is also an heir and the application for restoration filed by Late Anant Prasad Khanna cannot be dismissed without passing any order on the application of the substitution. The application filed by the landlord was ultimately decreed ex -parte on 14.9.1995. Sri Anant Prasad Khanna took two proceedings against the same. He filed an appeal as well as application to set aside the ex -parte order dated 14.9.1995. The grounds for condoning the delay and non -appearance in both of these proceedings are one and the same. The Appellate Court has already dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act refusing to condone the delay on the finding that there was no collusion between Sri Pankaj Khanna (Respondent No. 2) and the landlord on 24.4.1997. No further proceedings have been taken against this order. It has become final between the parties. Sri Pankaj Khanna atleast being heir of late Anant Prasad Khanna adequately represented the estate of the deceased Anant Prasad Khanna in the application filed to set aside the ex -parte order. This application filed by Sri Anant Prasad Khanna has been dismissed after hearing Sri Pankaj Kumar who was his heir and was not in collusion with the landlord as has been held by the Appellate Court. In view of this I see no justification to interfere with the order dated 10.11.1999 merely on the ground that no orders have been passed on the application filed by the petitioners.
(3.) THE writ petition has no merit. It is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner may not be evicted for a period of three months from today provided she files an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within one month from today that she will handover peaceful possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord and pay the rent for the period of her occupation.;