Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24506 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3380 of 2016 Petitioner :- B.K. Pandey Respondent :- Precribed Authority/Second Addl. Judge Small Causes And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishan Baghel,Yash Bharadwaj Counsel for Respondent :- Vimal Kumar Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. I. A. No. 4 of 2025 and I.A. No. 5 of 2025 1. The substitution application has been filed along with the delay condonation application. 2. The applications are allowed. 3. The delay in filing the substitution application is condoned. 4. The applicant is permitted to be substituted in place of the petitioner who has died. 5. Let the necessary correction be carried out during the course of the day. Order of Main Petition 6. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel who appears for the respondent. 7. The present petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 24.12.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, whereby the appeal preferred by the tenant was dismissed and the judgment passed by the prescribed authority on 05.09.2012 was affirmed. 8. The facts, in brief, as emerged are that the original landlord of the premises moved an application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 against the original petitioner Sri B. K. Pandey seeking eviction on the ground of personal need. It is stated that the original landlord died on 12.09.1985 during the pendency of the release application and had executed a will in favour of a Company, the respondent no.3 herein, wherein the entire property in question was bequeathed to the respondent no.3. During the pendency of the release application, the substitution application was filed on 15.07.1986 and thereafter an amendment application was filed seeking additional grounds of release in favour of the respondent no.3. 9. It is argued that the respondent no.3, the company, which had step into the shoes of the landlord had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the another company, which clearly establishes that the need was not bonafide of substituted heirs. On 05.09.2012 the prescribed authority allowed the release application, against which an appeal was preferred being Rent Appeal No.53 of 2012, which was decided by means of the order dated 24.12.2015. 10. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provision contained in Section 21(1) proviso (3) as well as the provisions contained in Section 2(1)(f) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, the release application could not have been allowed. It is further argued that the Company, the respondent no.3 could not have pleaded the personal requirement after the death of the original landlord and thus, on the said reasoning and the statutory provisions quoted above, the petition deserves to be allowed and the order impugned, which do not take into account the statutory provisions as quoted above, liable to be quashed. 11. The counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argues that the original petitioner, during the lifetime, had acquired another premises through his son within the city of Lucknow and, as such, in view of the explanation 1 to section 21(1), as the tenant had acquired another premises in the vacant state, his defense would not be entertained. The appellate court in its impugned judgment has specifically recorded that the son of the tenant had acquired another premises within the city of Lucknow and in the present writ petition, there is no pleading that the said finding is either perverse or illegal or wrongly recorded. It is clear that during the pendency of the proceedings, no defense of the petitioner, as it then was, could be considered. 12. It is also well settled that after the death of the tenant, the tenancy devolves, as joint tenant, on all the legal heirs including the petitioner. Admittedly, one of the joint tenant has a premises within the city of Lucknow and without there being a pleading, no fault could be found in both the courts not considering the defenses taken by the then petitioner, as such, without going into the arguments raised by the petitioner, in view of the explanation, no defense as pleaded by the tenant can be gone into, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 13. The petitioner shall handover the vacant and physical possession of the property in question to the respondent no.3 within period of one month from today failing which, the execution proceedings shall commence and shall be concluded positively within a period of two months. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 VNP/- Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench