( 1 ) AN eviction petition on the grounds of subletting was filed almost three decades ago, on 21. 11:1972. It was decided in favour of the Landlord by the Additional Rent Controller in 1985. The Tenant s appeal was allowed by the Rent Control Tribunal in July 1987. The present Second Appeal was admitted on 15. 12. 87. Thereafter, although this Appeal was listed on 24 occasions, not once has anyone entered appearance for any of the Respondents. A vakalatnama was filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 presumably, in February 1988. Respondent No. 4 had to be served through publication in the Statesman for the hearing scheduled for 11. 3. 1996 at 11 a. m. (Actual), but there was still no appearance for this Respondents or any of the other Respondents, on that date.

( 2 ) THE case set out by the Respondents in these applications is that their Counsel did not appear on 11. 9. 2000 since their names were not mentioned in the Cause List for that date. They came to know of the passing of the orders accepting/allowing the appeal on an inspection of the Court records on 12. 10. 2000, apparently by Shri K. J. S. Kalra, Advocate. This exercise was allegedly carried out because the tenant had heard whispers from the side of the landlord that the Respondent had been directed to vacate the demise premises on the expiry of the 15 days. " The vakalatnama of Respon- dents in favour of Mr. Kalra is dated 24. 10. 2000 that is after the inspection was carried out. In the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for rehearing the appeal, it has been averred that though no delay has occurred, the application has been filed in abundant caution. It has also been sanguinely stated that the Respondents have "been absolutely vigilant and diligent in prosecuting the case. " All these allegations have been denied by the Appellants. Mr. A. P. S. Ahluwalia has relied on the decisions rendered in Jainarian Singh v. Lachmi Prasad, AIR 1949 Pat 502, Gursharan Kaur v. Ram Chandra, 24 (1983) Delhi Law Times (SN) 18 and Lalit Mohan Puri v. Pure Drink Ltd. , 1994 Rajdhani Law Reporter 483. In Jainarain s case (supra) notice of the appeal had been served on 20. 5. 1947, intimating that the case would be heard on 28. 7. 1947, and the vakalatnama was filed five days prior to that date, that is, on 23. 7. 1947. The name of the Advocate was shown in the Weekly List but not in the Daily List. The Single Judge observed as follows:

"in the circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to take the view that this application is founded upon the ground that the notice of the appeal was not duly served. Regard being had to the rules and practice of the Court on the subject, it seems clear that the notice of the appeal pending before this Court which is issued ordinarily is merely a notice that the appeal will be heard on the date mentioned in the original notice or on any date thereafter of which a fresh notice will be given to him, by means of a cause list, that the case is to be heard on a particular date. It is well known that cases in this Court are never heard on the date for which they are notified to be heard in the original notice which is sent to the respondent. What is expected of the respondent in response to that notice is that he should come and engage an Advocate and file a vakalatnama so that it may be possible for this Court to give notice to that Advocate of the actual date of the hearing of the appeal. The cause list which is published is such a notice. If an appeal is heard without mentioning it in the daily cause list, it cannot but be held that that appeal has been heard in the absence of the respondent who was not duly served. Similarly, if in the cause list the name of the Advocate for the respondent is not mentioned, it must amount to having issued a notice without designating the person to whom the notice is issued. Such a notice is incapable of being served, much less of being duly served. "

( 3 ) IN the present case