JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared on behalf of Cantonment Board Cantt Kanpur respondent No. 2. 2. Property in dispute is a shop belonging to Cantonment Board Cantt, Kanpur. Abdul Rajjak father of petitioner and original respondents No. 4 to 7 was tenant of the shop in dispute. Cantonment Board Cantt, Kanpur initiated proceedings for eviction of Abdul Rajjak father of the petitioner, petitioner and A. Qayyum petitioner’s brother under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, which was numbered as Case No. 1338 of 1986. Estate Officer, Cantonment Board Cantt, Kanpur allowed the case and directed eviction of Abdul Rajjak and others. Against the said order, only petitioner filed appeal, which was numbered as P.P. Appeal No. 39 of 1987. In the appeal, substitution application was filed on 13.11.1991 as Abdul Rajjak had died on 6.11.1991. 3. Appeal was filed by present petitioner Abdul Gaffar and he impleaded his father Abdul Rajjak as respondent No. 2 and Abdul Qayum another son of Abdul Rajjak as respondent No. 3. In the application dated 13.11.1991 filed by the petitioner, it was stated that as other four sons of deceased Abdul Rajjak were not available to give their consent for being impleaded as appellants, hence they must be impleaded as respondents. 4. Before initiating proceedings for eviction under P.P. Act, Cantonment Board Cantt, Kanpur had given notice to Abdul Rajjak and his two sons, i.e. petitioner Abdul Gaffar and Abdul Qayum. Abdul Gaffar did not file any objection in the case. Abdul Qayum stated that he had no concern with the shop in dispute. 5. VIIIth A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar before whom P.P. Appeal No. 39 of 1987 was pending, rejected the substitution application through order dated 7.8.1996 on the ground that Abdul Rajjak had not appeared, hence by virtue of Order 22 Rule 4(4), C.P.C., it was not necessary to implead his heirs. 6. In my opinion, firstly C.P.C. does not apply to proceedings under P.P. Act. Secondly, even if the principle of Order 22 Rule 4(4) applies, still by virtue of the said provision, it is not essential to implead legal representatives of the party, who has not filed written statement, however there is no prohibition against impleading them. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Secondly, even if the principle of Order 22 Rule 4(4) applies, still by virtue of the said provision, it is not essential to implead legal representatives of the party, who has not filed written statement, however there is no prohibition against impleading them. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Substitution application of the petitioner filed before lower appellate Court seeking substitution of sons of late Abdul Rajjak as respondents is allowed subject to following conditions : (1) Steps to serve the substituted heirs of late Abdul Rajjak shall be taken in normal course, through registered post as well as through publication in some such newspaper, which is recognized for such purpose in Kanpur District. (2) Steps to serve shall positively be taken within six weeks from today before the lower appellate Court. (3) Property in dispute is a shop situate in Kanpur Nagar, which is most expensive city of U.P. The allegation of the petitioner is that rent is Rs.180 per year, i.e. Rs.15/- per month. Current rent may not be less than several thousands of rupees per month as Kanpur is most important industrial city of U.P. for more than a century. Accordingly it is directed that during pendency of appeal before lower appellate Court, eviction of petitioner shall remain stayed on the condition that he deposits rent damages for use and occupation @ Rs.1000/- per month w.e.f. September, 2008 onwards by 7th of each succeeding month for immediate payment to Cantonment Board Cantt, Kanpur. This direction is being issued in view of the Supreme Court authority reported in Atma Ram Properties v. Federal Motors, 2005 (1) SCC 705 . (4) The entire amount awarded by the order of the Estate Officer, which is challenged in appeal due till 31.8.2008, is deposited before the lower appellate Court within six weeks from today for immediate payment to the Cantonment Board Cantt, Kanpur. 8. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions, petitioner should immediately be evicted from the shop in dispute. 9. Lower appellate Court shall issue notice to Cantt Board Kanpur. 10. Writ petition is accordingly allowed subject to the above directions. ————