Sudhir Agarwal, J.— Heard Sri K.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the respondents though the case has been called in revised. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 13.9.1995 passed by Additional District Judge, Lalitpur rejecting petitioner's application No.95C and 97C, recalling his order dated 18.7.1995 and dismissing Rent Control Appeal No. 11 of 1989 being competent to proceed, having abated and simultaneously permitting petitioner to file application before Prescribed Authority, afresh, for claiming her rights, as advised. 3. One Nihal Chand, Son of Parmanand resident of Nandipura, Lalitpur was owner of the disputed shop No.246/5 Katra Bazar, Lalitpur (hereinafter referred to as "disputed shop"). He filed application on 23.07.1986 under Section 21 (1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") for release of disputed shop on the ground that he was lecturer in Bipin Behari Inter College, Jhansi and had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.1985. After retirement, he intends to start his own business in the disputed shop, hence the same should be released in his favour. The Prescribed Authority ultimately rejected application vide judgment and order dated 15.7.1989 whereagainst Rent Appeal No.11 of 1989 was filed by Sri Nihal Chandra, which was pending when Sri Nihal Chandra died on 20.11.1994. Thereafter petitioner Smt. Kesar Devi filed an application paper No.69-C requesting for her substitution in place of deceased-appellant and also for impleadment of other legal heirs of Late Nihal Chandra as proforma respondents. She also sought amendment in para 12 of memo of appeal. The application, paper No.69-C, was considered by Appellate Court and vide order dated 18.7.1995, it partly allowed petitioner's application to the extent of mention of her name after the name of appellant Nihal Chandra with further addition of mention of his death. Thereafter, she moved another application, paper No.95-C, under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment in memo of appeal for insertion of para 12-A in the grounds of appeal to the effect that in view of death of original landlord-appellant, subsequent legal heirs require accommodation for a different use and therefore, matter should be remanded to Prescribed Authority so as to get thereat necessary amendment in release application and thereafter to decide the matter afresh. Another application under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. was filed i.e. paper No.97C seeking amendment in release application itself at the appellate stage for addition of paras 7-A, 9-A and 13-A therein. 4. Both these applications were heard by Appellate court and vide judgment and order dated 13.9.1995 not only these applications have been rejected but the Court has also recalled its order dated 18.7.1995 and dismissed the appeal as not competent to proceed further. However, it has permitted petitioner to make a fresh application for release before the Prescribed Authority in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute this fact that petitioner has her own independent right to file application for release under Section 21 (1)(a) of Act, 1972 or on such other grounds as prescribed in Act, 1972 and the impugned order, in no manner, affects her right at all. He also could not dispute that in effect what the petitioner wanted is that a fresh trial should proceed before Prescribed Authority looking into the correctness of petitioner's claim of personal need etc. 6. That being so, in my view, even if there may be some technical reasons with regard to recall of the order dated 18.7.1995 etc., I find no substantial reason to interfere with the impugned order since the petitioner has not been prejudiced in any manner and her rights to proceed for release of accommodation in question under Act, 1972 are still intact and not affected in any manner by the proceedings initiated by Sri Nihal Chand. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in M/s Nadri Prasad Daya Ram and others Vs. Ramesh Chandra Gupta and another 1997(2) ARC 654, to the effect that the death of landlord would not affect rights of his legal heirs to prosecute release application seeking their substitution in view of Section 21(7) of Act, 1972. It is evident from record that Section 21(7) of Act, 1972 is applicable when application itself has not been disposed of and is pending. It is evident from record that Section 21(7) of Act, 1972 is applicable when application itself has not been disposed of and is pending. In the present case that decision would not help the petitioner for the reason that in the present case it is admitted case of petitioner that after death of Nihal Chandra, property in question has been inherited as co-owner by a large number of persons including the petitioner and none other except the petitioner has taken interest to pursue application for release of the accommodation in question. Besides it is not a case where application under Section 21 (1)(a) of Act, 1972 is still pending which was the case in M/s Nadri Prasad Daya Ram (supra), as is evident from para 4 of judgment. Since the rights of petitioner to prosecute claim for release of accommodation in question have not been affected adversely hence even otherwise, the said judgment, as such, does not help the petitioner. Same is the position with respect to another judgment cited at the bar i.e. Munshi Lal and another Vs. VI Addl. Civil Judge, and others, 1982 (1) ARC 278. 8. In these facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Dismissed. _____________