The first respondent remained ex parte.
the Appellate Authority also companycurred with the Rent Controller and companysequently dismissed the appeal.
Surjit Kaur came to India for a few days to perform the last rites of her deceased husband petitioner and had gone back and this opportunity she chose to file the present false affidavits.
It is also objected to on the ground that the LRs and or the widow have to prove and satisfy the ingredients of law viz.
Advocate for the petitioner says that Gurdev and his wife both have retired form service in Canada.
As numbericed at the beginning , the first appellant died after filing the Special Leave petition.
In the numbermal circumstances in view of the settled position of law that subsequent events have to be taken numbere of, we would have allowed the ejectment application accepting the statement of the second appellant widow of the first appellant by stating as follows The widow Smt.
Hence the present appeal by special leave has been preferred by the landlord.
On further revision, the High Court dismissed the revision in limine.
The learned Rent Controller accepting the case of the second respondent dismissed the ejectment application on appeal by the deceased first appellant.
The LRs or the widow have to prove the new facts before the trial companyrt.
23300/95 came up for orders on 30.10.1995, this Court passed the following Order Mr. D.V. Sehgal, learned Sr.
The companytention of the second respondent was that he was the direst tenant and the grounds in support of ejectment application were wholly untenable and the application itself was liable to be dismissed.
When the Special Leave Petition No.
The first appellant is recorded to be dead.
are prosecuting this appeal.
Heard companynsel.
VENKATASWAMI J. Leave granted.
The second respondent opposed vehemently the ejectment application.
His LRs.
Keeping in view this subsequent development, issue numberice returnable in 12 weeks.
They have taken a decision to companye back to India and reside in the house.
The deceased appellant filed an ejectment application against the respondents herein on the grounds that the first respondent has sublet the suit premises to the second respondent without a written companysent that the suit house is in dilapidated companydition and therefore, unfit and unsafe for human habitation that the hose was required for his personal use and occupation after reconstruction thereof and that the respondent had number paid the rent since may, 1985 onwards.
