Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140661 Court No. - 37 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5205 of 2021 Petitioner :- Abdul Salam Respondent :- Abdul Hameed Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Sheetla Sahai Srivastava Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J. 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Maurya, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sheetla Sahai Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the proceeding under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act No.13 of 1972") order for release was passed by the prescribed authority on 17.11.2017. Against the order of prescribed authority dated 17.11.2017, appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was filed before District Judge, Meerut by petitioner / tenant which was registered as P.A. Appeal No.13 of 2018. During pendency of appeal opposite party/ landlord has expired on 13.1.2020, accordingly, substitution application along with prayer for condonation of delay was filed on 25.8.2021. Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge/ POSCO Court No.1, Meerut vide impugned order dated 4.9.2021 dismissed the appeal as abated on the ground that substitution application in respect to opposite party has been filed after period of 30 days, hence this writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set aside the order dated 4.9.2021 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.13 of 2018 (Abdul Salam Vs. Abdul Hameed by which the application 15 (GA) and 17 (GA) has been rejected by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO) Court no.1, Meerut. ii. to issue a writ, order or direction to Court below to allow the petitioner's application (substitution and delay) and appeal be decided on merit." 3. This Court entertained the matter on 7.10.2021 and granted interim protection staying the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute. 4. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 7.10.2021 pleadings are exchanged between the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the substitution application filed along with the prayer for condonation of delay has been rejected on the ground of limitation and appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 has been dismissed as abated which is wholly illegal. He further submitted that delay was properly explained in the affidavit and application filed on behalf of the appellant of appeal but the Court has abated the proceeding in arbitrary manner. He further submitted that the impugned order should be set aside and the substitution application filed along with the prayer for condonation of delay should be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there was delay in filing the application, as such, the impugned order has been rightly passed. He further submitted that the petitioner is tenant, as such, he is lingering on the proceeding on one ground or the other. He further submitted that no interference is required and petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner / tenant should be dismissed. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 has been dismissed as abated due not non- substitution of legal heirs of respondent within period of 30 days from the date of death. 9. The Apex Court has held from time to time that proceeding is to be decided on merit rather on technical consideration. In the instant matter, the substitution application along with prayer for condonation of delay explaining the cause of delay has been filed even then the appeal has been dismissed as abated which is not proper exercise of jurisdiction by appellate authority in respect to proceeding initiated under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 4.9.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO), Court No.1, Meerut is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. The application for substitution dated 15C along with application 17C are allowed. The heirs of deceased respondent/ landlord shall be substituted in the memo of appeal by petitioner / appellant, accordingly. The appellate Court shall decide the Appeal No.13 of 2018 on merit after affording proper opportunity of hearing to both parties expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Learned counsel for the both parties are present before this Court, as such, it is directed that both parties shall appear before the appellate Court on 1.9.2025 along with certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Rameez Digitally signed by :- RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad