(1.) Special leave in S.L.P. (C) No. 4105/89 granted. The two appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 28th November, 1988 of the High Court of Delhi in S.A.O. Nos. 374 and 375 of 1978. The appeals before the High Court those out of proceedings for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') pertaining to shop No. 29/ 3943, Rehgarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
(2.) The eviction proceedings commenced as far back as in the year 1972. The respondent Bhagwanti Devi is admittedly the house-owner. And a certain Chaman Lal was the original tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 58.44p. According to the Respondents, after the death of Chaman Lal on 11th January, 1965, his elder son Sushil Kumar continued as tenant and there having been a default in payment of rents, respondents instituted Eviction Petition No. 667 of 1972 under S. 14(1)(a). It would appear that in hose proceedings Sushil Kumar tendered the arrears of rent and relief against forfeiture having been granted the eviction petition came to an end.
(3.) Thereafter, in the year 1975 the respondents alleging a repetition of default in he payment of rents instituted a fresh Eviction Petition No. 668 of 1975 under 14(l)(a) read with S. 14(2) of the Act. In the said proceedings appellants in Civil Appeal No. 5012 of 1989, who are the widow and the other heirs of Chaman Lal sought to have themselves impleaded on the ground hat 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 not the only or exclusive tenant. That application was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 24th April, 1976. The order of dismissal not having been challenged in further proceedings by the heirs has assumed finality. Thereafter on 17th July, 1976 the Additional Rent Controller proceeded to make an order of eviction against Sushil Kumar. Sushil Kumar preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal in R.C.A. No. 790 of 1976.