( 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. This vital defect in the notices sent under UPC has been ignored by the Courts below. Moreover, learned ARC as well as Tribunal erroneously drew presumption of service of notice of demand on the basis of notices posted under Certificate of Posting.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the challenge, the brief facts of the case as put up in the petition of eviction are that the respondent landlord/ owner of premises No. 249, Village Khureji Khas, New Delhi inducted appellant No. 1 M/s Prince Industries as tenant in which Hashmat All Khan and Rafat Ali Khan i. e. appellants No. 2 and 3 an, partners. The premises was let out for commercial purpose in the year 1970, on a monthly rent of Rs. l25. 00. The respondent sought eviction against the appellant No. l and impleaded appellants No. 2 and 3 being partners of appellant No. l, on the ground of non-payment of rent and committing second default in paying rent. Prior to the institution of this petition, the respondent filed a petition which was listed as Suit No-272/78. In that petition the learned ARC vide order dated 3rd April,1979 passed an order under Section 15 (1) of the Act thereby directing the appellant No. l through its partners appellants No. 2 and 3, to pay or deposit the arrears of rent w. e. f. 1st January, 1979 uptill that dale within one month with further direction that the amount already deposited be adjusted. The protection under Section 14 (2) of the Act was, however, specifically not mentioned. When the appellant inspile of the order in petition No. 272/78 did not pay rent and committed second default, he sought eviction against the appellant. It was the ease of the respondent that appellant had neither paid nor tendered the rent since 1st March,1980 despile notice of demand dated 16th April,1980. it was specifically pleaded that appellant No. l M/s Prince Industries was the tenant and that for the purpose of service of summons the partners were impleaded as parlies. The appellants look the plea that rent w. e. f. 1st March,1980 uptill 31st July, 1980 amounting to Rs. 625. 00 had already been paid. That notice of demand was never served. On the basis of the material available on record the learned ARC passed the decree of eviction vide his order dated 23rd September,1981. The appellants preferred appeal against the said order. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 1st Octobcr,1982 dismissed the appeal thereby granting one month s lime to the appellants to vacate the premises.

( 3 ) IN this second appeal, the order of the Tribunal as already pointed above has been assailed primarily on two counts, namely, (i) whether appellants No. 2 and 3 being partners were the tenant and not the firm i. e. appellant No. 1; and (ii) whether notice of demand was validly served and if not, could a decree of ev