Pankaj Mithal, J. –

Heard Sri Prateek Sinha, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1/1.

2. Respondent no. 2 is a formal party as the contest is between the revisionist and respondent no. 1/1 only.

3. The revisionist has preferred this revision against the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the Small Causes Court permitting substitution of respondent no. 1/1 in place of the deceased plaintiff Smt. Somwati Awasthi and refusing to recognise him as her heir and legal representative.

4. The dispute is regarding a House No. 130/90 (1) Bagahi, Kanpur Nagar. Smt. Somwati Awasthi as the owner and the landlord of the said house, instituted a small cause suit against the tenant Kishore Kumar Gupta. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff Smt. Somwati Awasthi died.

5. The respondent no. 1/1 Indu Kumar Dwivedi moved an application alleging that she has died issue-less, but has left a registered will on the basis of which he has succeeded to the ownership of the property and is entitle to be substituted.

6. On the other hand, the revisionist Brahma Dev Lal also moved an application for getting him substituted on