SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 20. 7. 1994 passed by the Prescribed authority releasing the disputed accommodation in favour of the landlord-respondent No. 3 and the order of the appellate authority-respondent No. 2 dated 13. 1. 1998 dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid order. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY, stated the facts, are that respondent No. 3 filed an application for release of the disputed accommodation against the petitioners and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the act) with the allegations that Bhagwan Das Sahu was a tenant of Shop Nos. 180 and 181 situate in Chaudhariyana, Jhansi. After his death, he was succeeded by his three sons and three daughters. One of his sons, Ashok Kumar died and he was succeeded by his widow Smt. Sandhya and son Sanjai Kumar. It was stated that he has three sons, namely, Ashok Kumar, awadh Kumar and Arvind Kumar. His sons are unemployed and he wants to establish them In the business and the disputed shop was required for that purpose. He himself was carrying on cloth business in a shop situate in Mohalla Khatriyana but his sons will carry on independent business in the disputed shop. It was further stated that the disputed shops were two but the tenant made material alteration and converted into one shop. These shops are in a very dilapidated condition and require demolition and reconstruction. He will use the reconstructed shop after their demolition. The tenants have two hotels, namely. Ashok Hotel and Prakash Hotel besides various other shops and properties in their possession and the tenants will not suffer any hardship on their eviction from the disputed shop. ( 3 ) THE two sets of objections were filed one by Ved Prakash Sahu petitioner No. 1 and another by Smt. Sandhya Sahu petitioner No. 3. They denied that the landlord-respondent requires the disputed shop for carrying on any business. His son Arvind Kumar has been appointed as lecturer in Mathematics in Bundelkhand Degree College. His another son Awadh Kumar is an advocate and his third son Ashok Kumar is assisting his father in business. It was denied that the house was in a dilapidated condition. They denied that the landlord-respondent requires the disputed shop for carrying on any business. His son Arvind Kumar has been appointed as lecturer in Mathematics in Bundelkhand Degree College. His another son Awadh Kumar is an advocate and his third son Ashok Kumar is assisting his father in business. It was denied that the house was in a dilapidated condition. The landlord has constructed certain shops situate opposite to the District Jail, Jhansi. The property in dispute is a joint property of various owners and without their implcadment in the application, it is not maintainable. ( 4 ) THE Prescribed Authority allowed the application by his order dated 20. 7. 1994 on the finding that Ashok Kumar is unemployed and he requires the disputed shop for carrying on business. The disputed shop fell into the share of the landlord after partition. The tenant-petitioners have two hotels, namely, Ashok Hotel and Prakash Hotel, besides other properties and they would not suffer any hardship in case they are evicted. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 filed separate appeals and both these appeals have been dismissed by the appellate authority respondent No. 2 on 13. 1. 1998. These orders have been challenged in the present petition. ( 5 ) I have heard Sri K. M. Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioners and S/sri A. N. Bhargava and b. N. Agrawal learned counsel for the contesting respondent. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No. 3 had impleaded Ashok kumar as one of the tenants in the application and after his death, he filed an application for substitution of his heirs, namely, his widow Smt. Sandhya, son Sanjai Kumar and daughter priyanka but he did not apply for appointment of guardian ad litem for the minor son Sanjai kumar and daughter Priyanka and in absence of any guardian having been appointed by the court, the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to pass any order for their eviction. ( 7 ) SMT. Sandhya was mother of Sanjai Kumar and Priyanka. She was their natural guardian. She was impleaded as a party. She had filed a separate objection and also represented their wards, namely, Sanjai Kumar and Priyanka- it was never alleged that their mother had any interest adverse to her wards. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that the provisions of Order XXXII, Rule 3. She was their natural guardian. She was impleaded as a party. She had filed a separate objection and also represented their wards, namely, Sanjai Kumar and Priyanka- it was never alleged that their mother had any interest adverse to her wards. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that the provisions of Order XXXII, Rule 3. C. P. C. are mandatory and it is obligatory on the Court to appoint a proper person to be guardian of the minor defendant in the suit. He has placed reliance upon the decision Sri Arjun Singh v. IInd Additional Civil Judge, Aligarh and others. 1994 (1) ARC 396, wherein it has been held that if the Court does not appoint any guardian under Order XXXII. Rule 3. C. P. C. for minor defendant, the decree passed against such minor would be a nullity. This decision relates to a suit filed in a regular civil court. The provisions of Order XXXII. Rule 3, C. P. C. are not strictly applicable in a proceeding before the Prescribed Authority. Section 34 of the Act provides that the District Magistrate, the Prescribed Authority or any appellate or revising authority for the purposes of holding any enquiry in appeal or revision under the Act shall have the same powers as are vested in Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit in respect of the matters enumerated therein. Order XXXII, Rule 3, C. P. C. has not been specifically mentioned in it. A Division Bench of this Court in Ram Naresh Tripathi v. IInd Additional Civil judge, Kanpur and others, 1980 ARC 563 held that Order XXXII, Rule 3 (2), C. P. C. , is not applicable in a proceeding under the Act but so far as the prosecution of the case, the principle may be applicable. Similarly, in a case before the Prescribed Authority where a minor has been implcaded and he is represented by a guardian, the proceedings will not be vitiated merely because the Prescribed Authority himself has not appointed a guardian for the minor in the proceedings before him. Sanjai Kumar and Priyanka were represented by their mother Smt. Sandhya. She had filed a separate objection resisting the claim of respondent No. 3 on various grounds. Sanjai Kumar and Priyanka were represented by their mother Smt. Sandhya. She had filed a separate objection resisting the claim of respondent No. 3 on various grounds. In these circumstances, the mere failure on the part of the Prescribed Authority to appoint her as guardian ad litem, will not vitiate the order passed by him. ( 9 ) IT may further be noted that after the death of Bhagwan Das Sahu, his heirs are Joint tenants and if some of the heirs had filed objections against the application of landlord for release of the disputed accommodation, such heirs represent the interest of all the heirs of the deceased tenant. In Harish Tandon v. Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, U. P. and others, 1995 (1) ARC 220, U has been held that it is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs and they succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. After the death of Bhagwan Das Sahu, even if Sanjai Kumar and priyanka were not properly represented through a guardian appointed by the Prescribed authority, their interests were properly and fully represented by other heirs of Bhagwan Das sahu. ( 10 ) THE next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No. 3 claimed himself as sole owner of the property without proving that the partition had taken place. Both the authorities below have recorded the concurrent findings that the disputed shop fell into the share of respondent No. 3 and this finding is based on assessment of evidence and the matter has been decided in Suit No. 195 of 1986 (Damodar Das v. Sita Ram Likhdhari ). I do not find any legal infirmity in this finding. ( 11 ) IT is next contended that one of the sons of respondent No. 3, namely. Arvind Kumar is working as Lecturer in Mathematics in Bundelkhand Degree College. Another son Awadh kumar, after having practised for some time, is now carrying on business in a separate shop and his third son Ashok Kumar is assisting his father in his business and, therefore, his need is not bona fide. The authorities below have also considered this submission. It has been found that ashok Kumar requires the disputed shop for carrying on his separate business. The authorities below have also considered this submission. It has been found that ashok Kumar requires the disputed shop for carrying on his separate business. The mere fact, that he is assisting his father as he had no independent shop, will not mitigate his desire and right to carry on separate business. In N. S. Dutta and others v. VIIth Additional District Judge, allahabad and others, 1984 (1) ARC 113, it has been held that merely a son is assisting his father in his business as a stop-gap measure, will not affect his claim to carry on independent business. In Smt. Ramkubai v. Hajarimal Dholak Chand, AIR 1999 SC 3089 , it has been held that where the son of the landlady started constructions work during the pendency of the proceedings, will not mitigate against his intention to start family business. Both the authorities have found that ashok Kumar will carry on business independently in the disputed premises and as such it is bona fide required by respondent No. 3. The view taken by the respondents does not suffer from any illegality. ( 12 ) IT was contended that respondent No. 3 had constructed various shops situate opposite the district Jail, Jhansi. There was no material evidence on record to establish this fact. The respondents recorded a finding that the petitioners failed to prove this fact. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had filed certain municipal records to prove this fact but it was wrongly rejected by the Appellate Authority. I have examined the order passed by respondent No. 2 on 12. 1. 1988. The Court had fixed 13. 1. 1988 for delivery of Judgment and the application was filed for taking additional evidence on 12. 1. 1988. There was no explanation as to why these documents were not filed when such documents were the extract of the municipal assessment year 1987-88 and were available. The matter was pending before the Prescribed authority since the year 1987 and the matter remained pending for about 11 years and one day just before the delivery of judgment, the extract of the municipal assessment was filed. The matter was pending before the Prescribed authority since the year 1987 and the matter remained pending for about 11 years and one day just before the delivery of judgment, the extract of the municipal assessment was filed. " respondent No. 3 was denying from the very inception that he had constructed any shop as alleged by the petitioners and there was no justification for the petitioners to file any document before the Appellate Authority immediately before the date fixed for delivery of judgment. ( 13 ) ON the other hand, it has been found that the petitioners are running two hotels, namely. Prakash Hotel and Ashok Hotel. In Prakash Hotel, the petitioners admitted that there are 25 rooms and some shops attached to it, have been let out to other tenants. There is another hotel named "ashok Hotel and Bar". They also own Bundelkhand Lodge where there are about 50 rooms. In the disputed premises, it has been alleged that they are carrying on business of general store while according to respondent No. 3, it has been sub-let to another person. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners urged that the area of the disputed shop is 48 x 18 and a part of it can be released in favour of the landlord. The petitioners had not taken this plea before the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority. The case of the landlord was that it was in a dilapidated condition. The Prescribed Authority had recorded a finding that it is in a dilapidated condition. The Appellate Authority, however, set aside this finding on the ground that the report of the Engineer submitted by respondent No. 3 cannot be relied upon as it is not in compliance with the provisions of Rule 17 framed under the Act. It is further case of the respondent No. 3 that he will demolish the shop in question and reconstruct a new shop. In view of the fact that the petitioners have already suitable alternative accommodation to carry on business, the plea of the petitioners that only a part of the disputed portion of the shop be released and another portion be left to them, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be accepted. ( 15 ) THERE is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly, dismissed. .