HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5188 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging an order dated 16.04.2024, whereby an application filed by the petitioners seeking the substitution on account of the death of their father was rejected. 3. The facts in brief are that, the petitioners are the tenant of the respondent since long and as, the then landlord of the premises, namely, Naeem Ullah, was not accepting the rent of the premises, the petitioner moved an application under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ('herein-after be referred to as 'Act of 1972') before the appropriate Court seeking permission to deposit the rent. It is admitted that no proceedings for eviction were initiated at the behest of the landlord against the petitioner-tenant. It is stated that father of the petitioners as well as the mother, died on 16.12.2023 and 10.02.2024 and the tenancy devolved upon, the petitioner, being their legal heirs. The petitioners moved an application seeking substitution in the application filed under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which has been rejected mainly on the ground that in terms of the provisions contained under Section 30(1) of the Act of 1972, there is no provision for substitution. The said view was found on the conjoint reading of provisions contained under Section 34(4) of the Act of 1972 read with Rule 25 framed under the said Act. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pahul Srivastava, Monika Yadav, Vishal Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rohit Khatri And Another .....Petitioner(s) Learned Civil Judge South (J.D.) Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. The submission of counsel for the petitioners is that, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, was repealed by U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 and in terms of prescriptions contained under Section 47 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 i.e. the new tenancy Act, all the proceedings which were pending on the date of the repeal were saved and, thus, the petitioners would have to suffer the consequences of not depositing the rent, despite the petitioners being ready and willing to deposit the same. 5. 5. The said contention cannot be accepted mainly on the ground that Section 30 of the 'Act of 1972' is only an enabling provision giving liberty to the tenant to deposit the rent in special circumstances. The said provision contained under Section 30 of the Act of 1972, does not give any benefit to the petitioners unless, the proceedings are initiated for eviction under Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 6. Thus, no vested right of continuing to deposit the rent under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is accrued in favour of the tenant, moreso, after the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 being repealed by 'Act of 2021'. 7. The petitioners cannot be threatened with eviction under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which can only be done under the new Act of 2021, wherein a provision is contained under Section 14 of the Act, 2021 giving the right to the tenant to deposit the amount in the eventualities specified under Section 14 of the new Tenancy Act of 2021. 8. The petitioners are entitled to deposit the rent in terms of the mandate of Section 14 of the new Act of 2021. 9. No good ground for interference against the impugned order is made out. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed with the observations made herein-above. September 2, 2025 Praveen A227 No. 5188 of 2025 2 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench