( 1 ) THE petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 6/11/1984 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissing the eviction petition filed by the petitioners.

( 2 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller held that the suit premises were let out for residential purposes to one Qamaruddin, husband of respondent No. 1 (since deceased) and the father of respondent No. 2 (also since deceased ). The suit premises were required bonafide by the petitioners for their residence.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, the petitioners were non-suited on two grounds, namely, that sadruddin, one of the sons of Qamaruddin was a necessary party to the eviction petition and he was not impleaded as a respondent. Therefore, the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of a necessary party.

( 4 ) IT was also held that the two deceased respondents were not the tenants of the petitioners because an order of eviction had earlier been passed against qamaruddin and as per the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, a tenant against whom an order of eviction has been passed ceases to be a tenant of the suit premises and, therefore, an eviction petition cannot be f