IN THE HIGH COURT6 OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1046/1999 Ummardeen Vs. Jamna Prasad (deceased) and Ors. 15.4.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Usman Khan,for the appellant. Shri Mahesh Gupta, for the respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This misc. appeal has been preferred by the defendant tenant against the order dated 19.5.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur city, Jaipur in civil misc. appeal No.35/1996 whereby the learned lower court has dismissed the appeal as having abated. The facts in brief are that a suit was filed by the deceased Jamna Prasad for eviction inter alia on the ground of default in payment of rent. The learned trial court determined the rent under Section 13 of Sub Section 3 of the Rajasthan Premises of Control Act, 1950. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order under Section 13 of Sub Section 3 the defendant appellant preferred an appeal before the learned lower court and during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal the plaintiff land lord died on 6.2.1998 and the defendant appellant tenant moved an application for substitution before the learned lower court in appeal on 27.2.1999 stating therein that he came to know about the death of the plaintiff only on 27.2.1999. Along with the said application an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was also filed. The plaintiff respondent on the other hand submitted a reply wherein it was stated that the defendant appellant herein had full knowledge about the death of the land lord plaintiff on 6.2.1998 as the deceased was residing just behind the shop in dispute and in front which the funeral procession was taken in full view of the tenant appellant and as such the appellant had full knowledge about the death of the plaintiff landlord respondent. Learned appellate court held that in the facts which have come on record it cannot be accepted that the tenant acquired the knowledge abut the death of of the plaintiff Jamna Prasad on 27.2.1999 after nearly a year of the death of the landlord. Accordingly this appeal was dismissed as having abated. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as per the amendment of order 22 rule 10A it was the duty on the part of the plaintiff and his counsel to have given the information about the death of the plaintiff and that the respondent plaintiff failed in discharging his duty as such the appeal could not have been dismissed as abated. The misc. appeal had been preferred against the interlocutory order under Section 13 of Sub Section 3 whereas the suit was pending before the learned trial court. The plaintiff having been died on 6.2.1998 an application for substituting his legal representatives was filed before the learned trial court on 26.3.1998, though it is submitted that the record of the case had been called before the appellate court. In view of the above the defendant acquired the knowledge about the death of the plaintiff on account of the presentation of the application for substitution of the legal representatives in the suit vide application dated 26.3.1998 filed by the plaintiff and it was sufficient knowledge on the part of the defendant. Thus it cannot be accepted that the defendant came to know for the first time about the death of the plaintiff on 27.2.1999 after one year. In the facts and circumstances therefore I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned lower court dismissing this misc. appeal as abated. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS