Order

Leave granted.

2. Raj Kumar, appellant No. 1 is a mentally retarded person. An appli­cation through next friend was filed on his behalf for eviction of the respondents from the premises which was owned by Raj Kumar. In reply to the Eviction Petition, it was inter alia stated that the appellant was a man of unsound mind and was not capable of doing any business and as no guardian has been appointed by the District Judge, the father could not act as a guardian.

3. An application under Order 32, Rule 1 read with Rule 15, C.P.C. was filed and the rent controlling authority by its order dated 4.8.93 appointed the father as the appellant’s guardian and next friend. This order was challenged by the respondents by filing a civil revision before the High Court and the High Court by its judgment dated 20.10.93 affirmed the order of appointment of the father of appellant as his guardian and next friend.

4. The rent control authority, after trial of the case, dismissed the application for eviction. Being aggrieved, a revision was filed by the appellant before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judg­ment dated 3.7.98 dismissed the revision not on merits but on the ground that the