JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This writ petition is directed against concurrent orders passed by the Courts below, recalling earlier order passed by the small cause Court on 15-1-1982, dismissing an application filed by one Abdul Rahim, father of Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 for setting aside an ex-parte decree passed in favour of the Petitioner on 13-7-1981 by the said Court as having been abated under Rule 25 of the rules framed under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 2. It appears that a suit for ejectment of the tenant against the said Abdul Rahim was filed. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 13-7-1981. Thereupon he filed an application for setting aside of the ex-parte decree. While that was pending Abdul Rahim died on 5-12-1981. On 11-12-1981 the Petitioner informed the Court that Abdul Rahim had died. 15-1-1982 had earlier been fixed for the disposal of the application filed by Abdul Rahim. On that date the Court passed the following order: None for the applicant who is reported to have died on 5-12-1981. Under Rule 25(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings Rules 1972 this application is dismissed as abated. Sd/Illegible J.S.C.C. 3. The same day the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who are respectively son and widow of Abdul Rahim, made an application with a prayer that the said order be recalled. They asserted that the suit could not be declared to have abated under Rule 25(i) as it was governed by the CPC which provided a period of 90 days for making a substitution application. 4. This application was contested by the Petitioner but was allowed by the learned Judge Small Cause Court by an order dated 6-2-1982. It was held that the suit was wrongly dismissed under Rule 25(i). The suit was governed by the CPC and consequently the period prescribed for making a substitution application under that Code would govern the matter. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the Petitioner filed a revision, but without any success. The revisional Court agreed with the trial Court and held that Rule 25(1) had no application to the present situation as the suit was governed by the CPC and not by Rule 25 in the matter of substitution. The revisional Court further observed that the first order was passed by the trial Court under an obvious mistake and the same has rightly been corrected by it. 6. The revisional Court further observed that the first order was passed by the trial Court under an obvious mistake and the same has rightly been corrected by it. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the Plaintiff has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. The first submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that the legal representatives of Abdul Rahim could not get the order dated 15-1 1982 set aside without showing that there was sufficient cause for the absence of the applicant on that date. 8. I am unable to accept the above contention. The trial Court had dismissed the application for setting aside of the ex-parte decree entirely on the basis that the same had abated under Rule 25(i). In the circumstances, it was open to the legal representatives of Abdul Rahim to approach the Court u/s 151 CPC and to point out that under a mistaken notion of law the suit was wrongly declared as having abated. Further, Abdul Rahim applicant had already died on 5-12-1981, consequently there was no question of the applicant not showing any sufficient cause for non-appearance on 15-1-1982. As legal representatives it was open to the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to approach the Court within the period of limitation prescribed under Order XXII to set aside the order which was passed on 15-1-1982, dismissing the application of their predecessor as having abated. 9. The second submission raised by the learned Counsel was that the Courts below have erred in holding that Rule 25(i) was not applicable to the case. 10. I find no merit in the above submission either. Rule 25 which has been framed u/s 34(4) deals only with applications for substitution in the proceedings for eviction or for determination of standard rent which have been mentioned in Section 34(4) of the aforesaid Act. 11. Section 34(4) of the Act provides that where any party to any proceeding for the determination of standard rent of or for eviction from a building dies during the pendency of the proceedings, such proceeding may be continued after bringing on the record in the case of the landlord or tenant, his heirs or legal representatives. It is under this provision that Rule 25 has been framed. 12. It is under this provision that Rule 25 has been framed. 12. A bare perusal of Section 34(4) read with Rule 25 clerarly leads to the conclusion that Rule 25 lays down the period of limitation of 30 days for substitution only in the case of a proceeding for the determination of standard rent of or for eviction form a building which are contemplated under the Act. The present, however, is not a case of proceedings for eviction under the Act, but of a regular suit for ejectment filed by the Petitioner. The proceedings for eviction which are referred to in Sub-section (4) of Section 34 are proceedings such as those contemplated u/s 21 or elsewhere in the Act. 13. From the mere fact that Section 20 lays down the ground upon which a suit for ejectment of a tenant from a building governed by the Act may be filed it does not follow that the suit has to be treated as a "proceeding" under the Act. Section 20 only lays down the grounds and provides a cause of action. The suit is, however, filed under the general law and its procedure is regulated by the CPC or Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 14. The suit filed on a ground contemplated u/s 20(2) is thus, in my opinion, not a proceeding for eviction under the Act for the purpose of application of Rule 25. 15. The Courts below are, therefore, rightly concluded that Rule 25(1) has no application to the present situation. 16. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.