( 1 ) APPELLANTS main grievance against the impugned order is that the learned Courts below ignored the fact that there never existed any relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellant No. 1 and the respondent. In fact appellants No. 2 and 3 partners of appellant No. 1 were the tenant of the premises bearing No. 249, Village Khureji Khas, New Delhi. Moreover, the respondent never served any valid notice of demand. In the absence of any valid notice of demand having been served on the tenant the petition was not maintainable. Even otherwise in the earlier petition which disposed of the application under Section 15 (1) of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) no benefit under Section 14 (2) of the Act was given. The learned Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC) as well as the Rent Control Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) fell in error in drawing presumption that the respondent served the appellants with a notice of demand. Such a presumption in the facts of this case was bad in law. The registered AD notices remained unserved. Notices sent under Certificate of posting were defective because name of appellant s father was not correctly mentioned.