( 1 ) THIS application under Order XXII Rule 4 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as civil Procedure Code. ) has been filed by the respondent/landlord for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased-respondent Smt. Nirmala Wati on record, who died on 6. 11. 2000. The application has been filed on 23. 1. 2001, that is, within the prescribed period. It has been objected to by the petitioner/revisionist/tenant on the ground that the cause of action does not survive or devolve on any person as eviction had been obtained under the provisions of Section 14 (D) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). This objection is without merit since a valuable right has fructified in favour of the deceased the fruits of which can be enjoyed by her legal heirs. The next objection is that since the revision petition has already been decided on 18. 2. 2000, the provisions of Order XXII Rule 4 are inapplicable. This objection is also without merit for the reason that while dismissing the revision petition this court had granted indulgence to the tenant by accepting his undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 31. 12. 2000. The tenant has failed to abide by his undertaking thus necessitating the filing of the accompanying application bearing no. 218/2001 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code. It is, therefore, necessary that the legal heirs are impleaded before C. M. 218/2001 under Order XXVI Rule 9 can be taken into consideration.

( 2 ) THE application is, therefore, allowed. As prayed for the persons mentioned in paragraph 5 of the application are impleaded as respondents 1a to IE. Amended memo of Parties be filed within one week. CM 218/2001:

( 3 ) THIS application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, has been filed by the respondents. The tenant had filed a revision petition against the order of eviction dated 22. 5. 1999 passed by the Additional Rent Controller under Section 14 (D) of the Act. The revision petition did not find favour with vijender Jain, and, therefore, on the first date. of hearing, 19. 7. 1999, notice was issued limited to the question of grant of time till 31. 12. 2000. On 10. 1. 2000 Madan b. Lokur had directed the petitioner / tenantto file an undertaking to the effect that he will vacate the premises on or before 31. 12. 2000, that he will pay water and electricity charges and he will maintain the premises in habitable condition. An affidavit and the undertakings contained therein was accepted by the Court. Contrary to the undertaking, possession of the property till date has not been handed over to the respondents. Prima facie, I am of the view that the petitioner is guilty of committing contempt of the orders of this Court. Issue notice under the contempt of Courts Act to Shri Kailash Chander Sharma, returnable on 16. 5. 2001. It is also evident that Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma is instrumental and privy to the violation/non-compliance of the undertakings accepted by this Court and hence notice will simultaneously issue to him also.

( 4 ) IT is in these circumstances that the respondents have prayed for the appointment of a Local Commissioner with directions to obtain vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises and to handover possession thereof to the respondents. This application has been strongly contested by Shri Dil Raj kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/tenant. His contention was that eviction was granted under Section 14 (D) of the Act in favour of Smt. Nirmala Wati. Since she has passed away, the decree being personal in nature cannot be executed; her need does not exist any further. Although no reply has been filed to this application, the reply to the preceding application under Order XXII rule 4 has been supported by the affidavit of Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, who is stated to be the younger brother of Shri Kailash Chander Sharma and in possessi