The original tenant had been evicted from the building under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. An application for re-entry was sought by the original tenant, who died during the proceedings and his legal representatives was substitute in the proceedings. The issue is whether the legal representatives of the deceased tenant were entitled to get themselves substituted to pursue the application moved by the "original tenant", seeking re-entry under Section 24(2) of the Act. The petitioners claimed that the right of re-entry being personal to the original tenant would fade away with his demise and the Act does not contemplate that the legal representatives of the original tenant would be allowed to continue to pursue the application for re-entry under Section 24(2). The respondents contended that the words "original tenant" would include the legal representatives in view of the definition of "tenant" under Section 3(a) read with Sections 2(11) and 146 of CPC and the legislature has conferred a right upon the tenant to have the newly constructed building allotted to him, considering the hardship which is implied due to eviction under Section 21(1)(b). After due consideration of various statutory provisions and precedents put forth Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held that in view of Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar & Ors., (1985) 2 SCC 683, the rule of heritability extends to statutory tenancy of commercial premises as much as to residential premises. Any person who represents the tenancy or intermeddles would be a legal representative and could be substituted in place of the deceased-tenant and the petitioners arguments were dismissed.