NATH OIL COMPANY Vs. KAILASH RANI KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were already served by the appellant. Respondent No. 2 was served on 11th December, 1998 and respondent No. 3 was served on 12th December, 1998. The affidavit in support of service was filed on 19th December, 1998 and inadvertently the Court issued notice as this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court that the affidavit of service was filed by the appellants.

(2.) I have perused the affidavit dated 19th December, 1998. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been served. On the fresh report of service on respondent No. 4, the service report is that he has refused to accept the notice of service. Respondent No. 4 is deemed to have been served and proceeded ex parte. Nobody is present on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. Respondents 2 and 3 are proceeded ex parte.

(3.) Eviction petition was filed by the respondent on the ground mentioned under Section 14(l)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Additional Rent Controller passed an eviction order on 13th November, 1985. The tenant preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and the Rent Control Tribunal vide its order dated 26.8.1986 remanded the case back to the Additional Rent Controller. The Additional Rent Controller again passed an eviction order against the tenant under Section 14(l)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-tenants preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which was dismissed. Against the said dismissal the appellants preferred the Second Appeal in the High Court which was also dismissed. Appellant-tenants filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court while allowing the Special Leave Petition set aside the order of eviction and remanded the case back to the Additional Rent Controller to record a finding after recording additional evidence. The Additional Rent Controller after taking into consideration the evidence on record dismissed the eviction petition on 9th November, 1989. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord-respondent filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. That order of the Tribunal is impugned in this Second Appeal by the appellants/tenants before me.