JUDGMENT 1. - Grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner is still in possession of the tenanted shop and eviction order so far has not been executed against him. The appeal was filed by the father of the petitioner but he died on 27/7/2010. The petitioner filed an application under Order 22, Rule 3 read with Order Order 22, Rule 9 CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 1= months. The Appellate Rent Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the application does not contain the correct date of death inasmuch as, the appeal already abated prior to the filing of the application. There should be a separate application for quashment of abatement under Order 22, Rule 9 (2) CPC. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition but could not dispute the fact that the period of limitation for filing application for quashment of abatement is sixty days and therefore even if it there was no separate application under Order 22, Rule 9 (2) CPC, the appeal ought to have been decided by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal on merit. The learned Appellate Rent Tribunal has taken a hyper technical view of the matter. 3. In the circumstances, the order dated 20/5/2011 (Ann.7) passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal, Sikar is set-aside. However, for the inconvenience caused to respondent No.2, he need be compensated by grant of appropriate amount of cost. Appeal No.12/2008 (Keshardev v. Rajendra Kumar ) is retored to its original number subject to cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to respondent No.2 before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sikar on 13/1/2014, on which date, the parties to appear before it. The Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sikar shall decide the appeal on merit within a period of three months w.e.f. 13/1/2014.With that aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.Petition allowed. *******