the suit for possession was however dismissed but a decree dated 31.
1961 a decree for eviction was passed in favour of the landlord appellant.
thereafter respondent number 1 filed an application under s. 25 of delhi rent companytrol act hereinafter referred to as the act for recalling the warrant of possession issued by the court in pursuance of the decree dated 31.7.1961 in favour of the landlord.
on 31.
1961 the land lord appellant filed an application under the delhi rent companytrol act for eviction of laxmi bank.
in 1948 a suit was brought by the appellant for eviction of the tenant for number payment of rent on the ground of companyversion of the user of the premises.
the rent companytroller allowed the application and recalled the warrant of possession by its order dated 20.
1969 of the delhi high companyrt in sad number 2/69.
this sale was companyfirmed by the high companyrt on the same date and as a result there of respondent number 1 took possession of the premises on 24.2.1961.
subsequently the bombay high companyrt ordered the bank to be wound up and in the winding up proceedings the said high companyrt appointed an official liquidator who on 16.
the matter was then taken up by the landlord in appeal to the rent companytrol tribunal which by its order dated 25.
these points may be extracted thus the application made by the appellant before the high companyrt under section 25 was number barred by reason of the dismissal of the appellants suit for default of appearance under order ix rule 9 c.p.c.
1961 sold the tenancy rights to respondent number 1 s. n. jain.
this suit was dismissed for number prosecution on 5.5.1964 and an application to set aside the ex parte decree was also dismissed and the appeal against that order also failed.
k. bisaria for the respondent.
the case had a rather chequered career having passed through several phases.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1085 of 1970.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 17.
a second appeal against the order of tribunal was then filed by the tenant to the high companyrt which reversed the order of the rent companytrol tribunal and restored the order of the rent companytroller hence this appeal by special leave.
this appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the delhi companyrt and arises out of an application filed by respondent number 1 who claimed to be the tenant of the appellant recalling the warrant of possession issued by the companytroller in pursuance of a decree dated 31 7 1961 passed against the 1st respondent.
to begin with the landlord appellant executed a lease in respect of the disputed premises in favour of respondent number 2 for three years as far back as 1.4.1942.
1948 for arrears of rent was passed and it was held that laxmi bank was the real tenant.
the present appeal arises out of these proceedings.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by fazal alij.
respondent number 1 filed a suit for a declaration that he was a tenant of the landlord appellant.
on 23 1 1963.
r. mridul and o. p. sharma for the appellant.
