Judgment : SUDHIR Narain, J. 1. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11-1-1995 passed by the Prescribed Authority allowing the application of the landlord-respondent No. 2, under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order dated 8-2-1996 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid order. 2. THE petitioner is tenant of premises in question situate at Dhartawala, Panditwadi, Prem Nagar, Dehradun consisting of two rooms, verandah, Bathroom, Kitchen etc. Jaimal Singh, father of respondent No. 2, was the landlord. He filed an application for release of the disputed house in the year 1983 on the allegation that he was residing as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 130 consisting of one room in House No. 63-B, Raipur Road, Dehradun. His family consisted of himself, his wife, his son Rajendra Singh (respondent No. 2) and daughter Km. Jitender Kaur. It was stated by him that Rajendra Singh was married on 24-4-1983 and after his marriage additional accommodation was required. It was further stated that his daughter Jitender Kaur was practising as an advocate and requires additional accommodation. Jaimal Singh, father of respondent No. 2, died on 24-1-1994. Respondent No. 2 filed an application on 8-4-1994 for his substitution on the allegation that his father has executed a Will by which he had bequeathed to him the disputed property. He further, in the same application, put forward his name stating that he has two sons aged about 9 and 7 years and they require additional accommodation. The petitioner filed objection that the application was barred by time as under Rule 25 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 the application for substitution should have been filed within thirty days. He also filed additional objection stating that no amendment in the application already filed u/s. 21 (1) (a) of the Act can be permitted by an heir of the deceased. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objection of the petitioner by order dated 16-11-1994 holding that the application for substitution could have been filed within ninety days. 3. He also filed additional objection stating that no amendment in the application already filed u/s. 21 (1) (a) of the Act can be permitted by an heir of the deceased. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objection of the petitioner by order dated 16-11-1994 holding that the application for substitution could have been filed within ninety days. 3. THE petitioner filed additional written statement on 30-11-1994 and it was stated that respondent No. 2 had purchased Premises No. 1/2, Tilak Road, Dehradun and does not require the accommodation in question. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 had concealed the accommodation which was in his possession. THE Prescribed Authority appointed a Commissioner to inspect Premises No. 1/2, Tilak Road, Deh radun as well as the accommodation in House No. 63, Rajpur Road, Dehradun which was under the occupation of respondent No. 2 as tenant and also the disputed accommodation. THE Prescribed Authority found that Premises No. 1/2, Tilak Road, Dehradun was a commercial accommodation. Respondent No. 2 was residing in one room as a tenant in House No. 63, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. THE need of respondent No. 2 was found bona fide and genuine and on comparative hardship it was found that in case the application of respondent No. 2 is rejected he would suffer greater hardship. THE petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority and respondent No. 1 has dismissed the appeal by order dated 8-2-1996. 4. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that substitution application should have been filed within thirty days from the date of the death of the landlord. Respondent No. 2 had filed substitution application aftera delay of one month and eleven days. It is urged that the view taken by the Prescribed Authority that the substitution application could be filed within ninty days was erroneous in law. In Subhas Chandra Saxena v. Prescribed Authority (Rent Control) Cum Hnd Addl. Civil Judge, Kanpur and Ors., 1981 A. R. C. 247, a Division Bench of this Court held that Rule 25 of the rules framed under the Act provides a period of one month for making an application for substitution for bringing on record the legal representatives of a deceased party. The rule, however, does not provide that proceedings will abate if no application is made within a month of the death of the party. The rule, however, does not provide that proceedings will abate if no application is made within a month of the death of the party. Since the rule is silent in this regard the provisions of this rule are directive and not mandatory. 5. IN view of this decision it cannot be held that proceedings shall stand abated. The Prescribed Authority had power to entertain the application in the interest of justice read with provisions of Rule 22 (f) of the Rules. 6. THE second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 while praying for his substitution in his application dated 8-4-1994 prayed for making certain amendments in the application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act and this could not be permitted by an heir who files application for substitution under Rule 25 of the Rules. There is no bar that while making application for substitution, the heir of the deceased-landlord cannot also seek amendment of the application already filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. Sub- section (7) of Section 21 of the Act provides that where during the pendency of an application under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act a landlord dies, his legal representative shall be entitled to prosecute such application further on the basis of their own need in substitution of the need of the deceased. The heir of the deceased-landlord can seek amendment of the application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act while praying for his substitution on the death of the deceased-landlord. 7. IT may further be noticed that Jaimal Singh, father of respondent No. 2, had filed application for release on the allegation that he needs the disputed accommodation on the ground that he was living as tenant in Premises No. 63, Rajpur Raod, Dehradun and he further stated that respondent No. 2 has been married and requires additional accommodation. After the death of Jaimal Singh the only change in circumstances has been that the daughter of Jaimal Singh has been married and on the other hand respondent No. 2 has been bestowed with two sons. In these circumstances substantive allegation remains the same i.e. the requirement for respondent No. 2. 8. After the death of Jaimal Singh the only change in circumstances has been that the daughter of Jaimal Singh has been married and on the other hand respondent No. 2 has been bestowed with two sons. In these circumstances substantive allegation remains the same i.e. the requirement for respondent No. 2. 8. THE next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 purchased Premises No. 1/2, Tilak Road, Dehradun by registered sale deed dt. 4-2-89 and he had concealed this accommodation. This controversy has been considered by the Prescribed Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority. A Commissioner was appointed who submitted a report that the accommodation in Premises No. 1/2, Tilak Road, Dehradun consists of one shop and a store. It is a commercial accommodation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that an affidavit was filed in which it was stated that there was some open space in front of this premises and a tin shed room was constructed but it was not taken into consideration. The petitioner has not filed a copy of the report of the Commissioner and further not indicated that any objection was filed against the report of the Commissioner. I find the Appellate Authority has made an observation that the counsel for the petitioner conceded before respondent No. 1 that the Premises No. 1/2, Tilak Road, Dehradun is a commercial one. The petitioner in Para 31 of the writ petition has stated that the petitioner at no stage admitted before the Appellate Court or before the Prescribed Authority that Sardar Rajendra Singh was not having any residential accommodation at Tilak Road, Dehradun. The petitioner has not stated that his counsel has not conceded the fact that the property at Tilak Road is a commercial one. Secondly this finding is based on the report of the Commissioner. 9. THE Commissioner further found that respondent No. 2 is living as tenant in Premises No. 63, Rajpur Road, Dehradun which consists of one room measuring 12' x 12'. This accommodation is certainly insufficient for the need of the family members of respondent No. 2. His family consists of his mother, wife and two sons who year then 9 years and 7 years old. THE accommodation in possession of the petitioner under his tenancy consists of two rooms. This accommodation is certainly insufficient for the need of the family members of respondent No. 2. His family consists of his mother, wife and two sons who year then 9 years and 7 years old. THE accommodation in possession of the petitioner under his tenancy consists of two rooms. Considering the number of family members of respondent No. 2 and the accommodation which is in his possession it has been found that respondent No. 2 bona fide requires the accommodation in question. 10. THE last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 had offered the accommodation which is under his tenancy in Premises No. 63, Rajpur Road, Dehradun but the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority have not recorded any finding regarding this offer. It is admitted that respondent No. 2 is living as tenant of Premises No. 63, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. On getting the possession of premises in dispute by respondent No. 2 and after vacating Premises No. 63, Rajpur Road, Dehradun by him the Rent Control and Eviction Officer will pass an appropriate order regarding declaration of vacancy and in case it is not released in favour of the landlord there is no reason that, considering the need of the petitioner, it will not be allotted to him. In the last learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner will suffer great hardship in case the petitioner is evicted from the premises in question. The application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was filed in the year 1983. The petitioner could have made sincere efforts to find out an alternative accommodation. The Appellate Authority further found that the wife of the petitioner is also working as a Nurse. Considering the hardship it has been found that in case the application of respondent No. 2 is rejected he will suffer a greater hardship. This finding does not suffer from any manifest error of law. 11. IN view of the above there is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is, however, granted three months time to vacate the disputed premises provided he gives a written undertaking on affidavit before the Prescribed Authority that he would vacate the disputed accommodation within the time granted by this Court and will hand over its peaceful possession to the landlord-respondent No. 2. Petition dismissed.