JUDGMENT (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4-8-1990 passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the substitution application filed by the petitioners with a direction to file a fresh substitution application along with an application to set aside abatement. (2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the petitioners are landlords of the shop in dispute. They filed Suit No. 237 of 1984 in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Allahabad for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages for use in occupation against Jawahar Lal (deceased defendant) on the ground that he committed default in payment of arrears of rent and illegally sub-let the shop in question. THE defendant contested the suit and denied that he committed default in payment of arrears of rent or sub-let the disputed shop. THE trial Court dismissed the suit on 21-12-1985. THE petitioners filed Civil Revision No. 36 of 1986 against the judgment of the Judge Small Causes Court. During the pendency of the revision, the sole defendant, Jawahar Lal, died on 9-11-1988 leaving behind him his brother Panna Lal and Nephews from other brothers. As Panna Lal was a preferential heir, the petitioners filed application for substitution of his name as heir of deceased Jawahar Lal. (3.) PANNA Lal filed objection stating that he had relinquished all his rights in the property and the business which was carried on by his late brother Jawahar Lal, He has left no rights and interest in the tenancy rights of late Jawahar Lal, He had executed registered relinquishment dated in this respect on 16th July, 1965. Respondent No. 1 held that as PANNA Lal executed relinquishment deed, he did not inherit the tenancy rights and the sons of other brothers of late Jawahar Lal were entitled to succeed his tenancy rights and they should be impleaded as his heirs. The substitution application filed by the petitioners was dismissed with the observation that the petitioners can file a fresh application for substitution with an application to set aside abatement. (4.) THE core question is whether an heir, who is entitled to succeed as an heir of a tenant, is entitled to relinquish his rights in the demised property. The substitution application filed by the petitioners was dismissed with the observation that the petitioners can file a fresh application for substitution with an application to set aside abatement. (4.) THE core question is whether an heir, who is entitled to succeed as an heir of a tenant, is entitled to relinquish his rights in the demised property. Section 3 (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) defines the "tenant", in relation to a building, means a person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenant's death in the case of residential building such only of his heirs as normally resided with him in the building at the time of his death; and in case of non- residential building, his heirs. THE building in question is non-residential. On the death of the tenant his tenancy rights were to devolve upon all his heirs. THE word "heir" has not been defined under the Act. THE Act contemplates only natural heirs. THE heirs will be determined according to personal law applicable to a party. In case of respondents, the succession will be determined in accordance with the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. THE property of a male Hindu Shall devolve upon the heirs as provided under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Brother is preferential heir than brother's son as enumerated in Class I and Class II of the Schedule referred to under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. Pannalal, the brother of the deceased, will have a right to succeed the tenancy rights in preference to brother's son. Sri R. N. Bhalla, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Act does not contemplate testamentary succession but only natural heirs can succeed to the tenancy rights and the same principle is applicable that by executing a relinquishment deed the tenancy rights cannot be transferred to other heirs who in the line of succession were not entitled to succeed the tenancy rights of the deceased. In Ratan Lal v. Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr and others, 1979 ALJ 849, where the succession to the tenancy rights was claimed on the basis of a Will, it was held that the word "heirs" in the context of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 will mean only natural heirs. In Ratan Lal v. Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr and others, 1979 ALJ 849, where the succession to the tenancy rights was claimed on the basis of a Will, it was held that the word "heirs" in the context of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 will mean only natural heirs. The word "heirs" in relation to a tenant should be construed as referring to the person entitled to succeed the property under the law of interstate succession applicable on the date when the tenant dies. This view has been followed in subsequent decisions of this Court. (5.) THE testamentary succession is claimed on the basis of a Will executed by the deceased whereby the testator deprives the natural heirs to succeed the property and diverts it for the purpose of succession to a person of his choice. It is passing of a title under the law of testamentary succession. THE provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 contemplates only natural heirs. It, however, nowhere restricts the right of a person to relinquish his title or tenancy rights in any property. THE relinquishment is an abandonment of a claim or it is non-claim of certain rights which is conferred on a person under a contract or law. If a person has relinquished his right, he does not pass on or diverts his rights to any other person. THE consequences of relinquishment of his right is that the other person, who is entitled to succeed in order of preference, will get right to inherit the tenancy rights which otherwise could not have been conferred on under law. THE relinquishment does not create any right in favour of any person. In a case of a Will, the person creates right in Favour of a person who otherwise was not entitled to succeed the property. A preferential heir can always relinquish his right in the tenancy. (6.) PANNALAL, the brother of the deceased, had relinquished his rights in the firm Mool Chand and Sons which was being run in the disputed premises No. 48, Johnstonganj, Allahabad by executing a registered relinquishment deed on 16th July, 1965. After the death of Jawaharlal, as Panna Lal had already relinquished his share, the other brothers' son are the natural heirs of deceased Jawahar Lal, They will be entitled to succeed the tenancy rights. After the death of Jawaharlal, as Panna Lal had already relinquished his share, the other brothers' son are the natural heirs of deceased Jawahar Lal, They will be entitled to succeed the tenancy rights. On the objection being raised by Panna Lal that he had relinquished his rights and the Court being satisfied that such relinquishment deed was executed, the Court was justified in directing the petitioners to file a fresh application for substitution of other natural heirs of deceased Jawahar Lal, Respondent No. 1 directed the petitioners to file a fresh substitution application along with an application to set aside abatement. The petitioners had already filed a fresh application in time and they had rightly impleaded Panna Lal on the basis that he was the brother of the deceased but on his objection and information to the Court that he had relinquished his share in the property in question, it was his duty to disclose the names of other heirs of the deceased Jawahar Lal, Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners are allowed to file fresh application for substituting the names of the other heirs of the deceased Jawahar Lal within six weeks and if such an application is filed that shall be treated as filed within time. (7.) THE writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above. Petition dismissed.