The protection afforded by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was only personal and the heirs of the deceased tenant did not inherit the tenancy rights.

( 1 ) THIS judgement will dispose of three appeals S. A. O- Nos. 202181, 212181 and 13190 as they raise common questions of law The first two appeals arise out of judgment dated September 17, 1979 of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, and judgment dated May 7, 1981 passed by Rent Control Tribunal.

( 2 ) THE respondent filed eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) on August 21, 1978 for eviction of the appellants from one big room, two small rooms, verandah, part of open terrace in front etc. forming part of the tenancy premises on second floor, plot No. 27, House No. 4779, Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The allegations were made that Kishori Lal, since deceased, was tenant under the respondent in respect of the above said premises since July 18, 1953 at rental of Rs. 771- per month, but has neither paid nor tendered arrears of rent within two months from service of notice dated December 18, 1977. The petition for eviction was contested by the appellant on the grounds that the same was not maintainable without permission under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. The respondent did not accept rent and refused to issue receipt. Therefore, rent had been deposited in the court of Additional Rent Controller in eviction Suit No. 730 of 1970. The learned Additional Rent Controller held that notice dated December 18, 1977 had been served on the appellant by which contractual tenancy was terminated, ft was further held that the deposit made by the appellant was not valid and that it was not a case of second default. The Controller, accordingly, passed the order directing the appellant to deposit the entire arrears of rent from December 18, 1976 upto date at the rate of rs. 771- per month holding that if the order was complied with. the eviction petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed in view of Section 14 (2) of the Act. In case the appellant failed to comply with the order, an eviction in favour of the respondent shall be deemed to have been passed in respect of the premises, as shown in red in the site plan Ex. A-12. The appellant as well as the respondent felt aggrived by the Order passed by the Additional Rent Controller and filed their respective appeals (RCA No. 1055 of 1979-Kishori Lal v. Siri Kishan and RCA No. 1277/79--Siri Kishan v. Chando Devi ). These two appeals were heard by the Rent Control Tribunal who disposed of the same by a common judgment.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, Kishori Lal, appellant died and an application dated July 31 1989 was filed alleging that Kishori Lal died on December 20, 1979 leaving behind his widow, three sons and three daughters. It was claimed that except daughter Smt. Upma Misra all others were being with the deceased tenant at the time of his death and were financially dependent upon him. It was further alleged that the surviving spouse Snit. Chando Devi was living with the deceased and was financially dependent upon him and, therefore, she would be a tenant in the suit premises in the first instance.

( 4 ) IN reply to the said application the respondent landlord alleged that the same was time barred and the application was not signed and verified properly. The earlier application for bringing legal representatives on record had been dismissed and, therefore, the present application was not maintainable. It was denied that the heirs of the appellant were financially dependent upon him and that the appellant was a heart patient for 3-4 years from his death and was not doing any work. The sons of Kishori Lal, Rakesh Kumar and Mukesh Kumar were earning and Smt. Chondo Devi was dependent upon her "sons financially and thus it was claimed that no right, interest or title vested. with the heirs of the deceased. The Tribunal by order dated October 31, 1980 held that Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings underorder 22c. P. C. and the objection in this