Judgment:
Santosh Duggal, J.
(1) In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the main contention urged is that no formal order for bringing the petitioners on record as legal representative of deceased Shri P.C. Gupta was passed, during proceedings in the eviction petition, brought by the landlady under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act), and as such, the eviction order is vitiated.
(2) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. I find from the order sheets in the original case records that after the eviction petition was filed by the previous owner Smt. Usha Jain, an application was moved by respondent No. 2, Smt. Shashi Jain under Order 22 rule 10 Civil Procedure Code praying to be substituted as petitioner, on the plea that she had since purchased the property. At the same time i.e. on 2.2.1984 another application was filed by her, under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code staling that respondent No. 2, Shri P.C. Gupta, who was in occupation of the premises had since died and his legal representatives be brought on record. Whereas the application under Order 22 Rule 10 Cpc was allowed in so far as application under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code was concerned, notice was ordered to issue to the legal representatives. In the meantime the petitioner filed an amended memo of parties showing name of the present petitioners as legal representative of deceased, Shri P.C. Gupta, who whs respondent No. 2 in the eviction petition.
(3) Notices were issued and eventually all of them were served and when the matter came up on 11.3.1987 before the Addl. Rent Controller, a Counsel appeared for the legal representatives and as prayed, the matter was adjourned to 6.5.1987 for filing the written statement. According to Shri Adlakha this was on request of Counsel for the legal representatives (petitioners herein) because respondent No. I in the proceedings, the tenant S. Chand & Co. Ltd., had already filed a written statement. No written statement was filed by the legal representatives on the adjourned date i.e. 9.5.1987 and another date i.e. 1.7.1987 was given on which date neither the Counsel nor any of the legal representatives appeared nor written statement had been filed. An order of ex-parte proceedings against them was passed, in face of the above position.
(4) I am informed by Mr. Adiakha that this order of ex-parte proceedings, against the legal representatives was confirmed firstly by the Rent Control Tribunal in appeal, filed by the petitioners, and thereafter in the second appeal, before this High Court in Sao No. I of 1991, disposed of on 7.L1991. It js further stated by Mr. Adiakha that after the matter went back Oji dismissal of the second appeal filed by the petitioners, they availed of the opportunity to, cross-examine the petitioner there. So far as their right to produce evidence was, concerned, that was disallowed by the Court, and rightly so, on the ground that. there was no written statement and thereafter a detailed order on the basis of facts on record was passed.
(5) The Addl. Rent Controller had upheld the plea of the landlady that the premises were taken on rent by the company respondent No. I, and deceased Shri P.C. Gupta, the prede.cessor-in-interest of the petitioners was put in possession by them as their employee. He continued to be in possession even after retirement, and under the circumstances the landlady filed an eviction petition claiming that the status of Shri P.C. Gupta was that of a subtenant. The petitioners continued to be in possession even after the death of Shri P.C. Gupta, although according to the landlady Shri P.C. Gupta had no right, even during his life time, to continue in occupation once his employment with respondent No. I was over. The Addl. Rent Controller rightly held the view that since the petitioners are admittedly in exclusive possession of the tenancy premises, it was manifestly a case of sub-letting on the part of respondent No. 1, as they had admitted that they were the original tenant, and also the fact that Shri P.C. Gupta had been put in possession by them as their employee, and had retired from their service.
(6) The petitioners are continuing to occupy the premises for all the se long years by raising a technical objection that no formal order was passed on the application under Order 23 Rule 4 CPC. This position is not tenable. The record reveals that they appeared as legal representatives before the Addl. Rent Controller on 11.3.1987, through Counsel, and even took two adjournments for filling written statement and on their failure to file the written statement, they were proceeded against ex-parte, which order was confirmed in the second appeal. The petitioners have had full opportunity to be present before the Court and present their case. Once the order of ex-parte proceedings had been confirmed in the second appeal, it does not now lie open to them to say that they had certain contentions to establish by evidence because the evidence is always in support of pleadings, and once there was no written statement, the Addl. Rent Controller rightly held that there was no case for the petitioners to prove by evidence. They availed of the opportunity which a party is entitled to after order of ex-parte proceedings, namely, cross-examination of the petitioner's witnesses, and also to be present at the time of bearing.
(7) It is not the case of the petitioners that they are not legal representatives of Shri P.C. Gupta. The only purpose the formal order under Order 22 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code would have served was that of binding the persons named by the petitioner as legal representatives, after giving them opportunity to appear and contest the case, on pleas open to them. This opportunity has abundantly been afforded to the petitioners. There has been no denial of any opportunity to the petitioners nor any prejudice caused to them because they have although been represented right from March 1987, and even availed of rights of appeals and revisions.
(8) I do not, thereforee, find any jurisdictional error committed by the Addl. Rent Controller while passing an eviction order under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, or by the Rent Control Tribunal in confirming the same.
(9) This petition is devoid of all merits and deserves dismissal. The same is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1000.00 . Petition dismissed with costs Rs. 1000.00.