- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner does not want to press this writ petition. In this writ petition a very detailed order was passed on 2-4-1999.
(2.) IT is necessary to pass orders on the substitution application filed by the petitioner. Petitioner has filed an application on 13th July, 1992 for substituting the heirs of the deceased Smt. Yashoda Jauhari petitioner. In this case affidavit was filed in support of this application. It is mentioned that the petitioner died on 24-6-1992 leaving behind her sons Raghuvansh Jauhari, Kusum Jauhari and Rajendra Prasad Saxena. A counter-af fidavit has been filed, in which it has been mentioned that Raghuvansh Jauhari and Kusum Jauhari were not residing with the petitioner at the time of her death; and as the accommodation is residential one, they do not become tenant and Rajendra Prasad Saxena is not the heir and as such the cause of action does not survive and the writ petition to be dismissed. Today the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in which it is admitted that Raghuvansh and Kusum Jauhari were not residing with the deceased Smt. Yashoda Jauhari. In view of the statement none of persons who has fried an applica tion for substitution are the tenant of the remises in dispute and after the death of Smt. Yashoda Jauhari, none of them are entitled to press the writ petition. This application as well as writ petition is dis missed.
(3.) THERE is another application dated 28-8-1998 has been filed for abating the writ petition on the ground that Sri Braj Nandan Bhatnagar. Respondent No. 2 has died on 20-10-1998 and his heirs has not been substituted and the writ petition dis missed as -abated. THEREafter the petitioner filed an application on 27-9-1998 for substituting the heirs of the deceased-respondent No. 2 and for con doning the delay. Counter affidavit has also been filed alongwith application. I have already dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is no more and the persons who have filed sub stitution application are not tenants after death of the erstwhile tenant in view of Section 3 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972. In view of this it is not necessary to pass any detailed order in this application. Suffice to say, there is no suf ficient ground to condone the delay in filing the application for substitution of respondent No. 2. The writ petition is also liable to be abated on this ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Sri Rajendra Prasad Saxena was living with Late Smt. Yashoda Jauhari, was residing with her and looking after her in her old age. He is still living in the premises in dispute.;