Thereafter, in the year 1975 the respondents alleging a repetition of default in the payment of rents instituted a fresh Eviction Petition No.
54 of 1976 was allowed and that of Sushil Kumar preferred against the order of eviction was dismissed.
The order of dismissal number having been challenged in further proceedings by the heirs has assumed finality.
of Chaman Lal whose impleadment was refused on the original side sought to raise the same objection that the order of eviction made against Sushil Kumar alone was hot binding on the other heirs of Chaman Lal.
29/ 3943, Rehgarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
In those proceedings the other L.Rs.
790 of 1976.
The appeal of the respondents arising out of Execution Petition No.
374 and 375 of 1978 reported in 1989 Rajdhani LR 61 .
Thereafter on 17th July, 1976 the Additional Rent Controller proceeded to make an order of eviction against Sushil Kumar.
5012 of 1989, who are the widow and the other heirs of Chaman Lal sought to have themselves impleaded on the ground that after the death of Chaman Lal the tenancy respecting the premises was inherited by all the heirs of Chaman Lal and that Sushil Kumar was number the only or exclusive tenant.
In the said proceedings appellants in Civil Appeal No.
374 of 1978 and the latter in SAO No.
The eviction proceedings companymenced as far back as in the year 1972.
In the meanwhile the respondents put the order of eviction dated 17 7 1976 into Execution in Ex.
668 of 1975 under Section 14 1 a read with Section 14 2 of the Act.
399 of 1978.
Against these two orders of the Tribunal both Sushil Kumar and the other heirs brought up two second appeals before the High Court, the former in SAO No.
And a certain Chaman Lal was the original tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.
The respondent Bhagwanti Devi is admittedly the house owner.
According to the Respondents, after the death of Chaman Lal on 11th January, 1965, his elder son Sushil Kumar companytinued as tenant and there having been a default in payment of rents, respondents instituted Eviction Petition No.
Sushil Kumar preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal in R.C. A. No.
That application was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 24th April, 1976.
Special leave in S.L.P. C No.4105/89 granted.
58.44p.
667 of 1972 under Section 14 1 a .
As the earlier appeal RCA 790/1976 of Sushil Kumar against the order of eviction was also then pending, the Rent Control Tribunal, heard and disposed of the appeals by two separate orders both dated 23rd October, 1978.
The two appeals arise out of the companymon Judgment dated 28th November, 1988 of the High Court of Delhi in S.A.O. Nos.
Aggrieved by that order, respondents preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal in RCA No.
The executing Court by its order dated 21 2 1978, upheld those objections and dismissed the execution application.
P. No.
The appeals before the High Court arose out of proceedings for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for short the Act pertaining to shop No.
54 of 1976.
