( 1 ) THE present Second Appeal is directed against the judgments dated September 3, 1991 and October 19, 1992 respectively passed by the Additional Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi.

( 2 ) THE respondent filed a petition for eviction of appellant No. 2, Subhash Chander Bali from premises, B-72 (A-Type) Double Storey Quarters, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi on the allegations that the premises were let out for residential purposes; the appellant No. 2 has, on or about July, 1981, acquired a DDA flat bearing No. 201, Pocket- 4- A/c Janakpuri, New Delhi. An alternative plea was also taken that the said appellant also acquired flat No. 85-A, Pocket A-6, Janta Flats, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi from DDA. Therefore, he was liable to eviction under the provisions of Section 14 (1) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Act ).

( 3 ) THE petition was contested on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties as the respondent was not the landlord: The premises were taken on rent by Shri K. R. Bali, deceased father of appellant No. 2 and husband of appellant No. 1. The premises are in the use and enjoyment of Smt. Prakash Wati Bali and other legal heirs of the above said Shri K. R. Bali. Appellant No. 2 also denied that he had acquired DDA flat bearing No. 201-A, Pocket 4-A/c Janakpuri, New Delhi but did not deny that he acquired flat No. 85-A, Pocket A-6, Janta Flats, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. Before the Rent Control Tribunal, an application was moved by appellant No. 1, Smt. Prakash Wati Bali under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. This application was allegedly made on 16th April, 1992. Taking note of the fact that in view of the demise of the father of appellant No. 2, Shri K. R. Bali he alone was issued rent receipts in respect of the premises by the landlady and his mother, two brothers and sisters never asserted their tenancy rights, the Tribunal came to the inevitable conclusion on the basis of the admission and conduct of the parties that there was implied surrender of tenancy by the other heirs of Shri K. R. Bali deceased in favour of appellant No. 2 who alone became the tenant in the disputed premises. The appeal, as a consequence, was dismissed and the order of the Additional Rent Controller was affirmed. Similarly, the application moved by appellant No. l under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. was also dismissed and she was not permitted to be impleaded as a party. The appellants felt aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal and has filed the Second Appeal before this Court.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tribunal gravely erred in dismissing the application of appellant No. l to be impleaded as a party as she was one of the legal heirs of the deceased tenant K. R. Bali and, accordingly, no order of eviction could be passed without hearing her. The provisions of Section 37 of the Act were cited in this regard and it was reiterated that no order which prejudicially affected the right of appellant No. 1 could be made by the Controller without giving her a reasonable opportunity of showing cause and until her objections, if any. were considered. Reference is made to the judgments as reported in Indra Sharma v. Gopal Dass and others 1984 DRJ (7) page 286; Mohd. Azeem v. District Judge, Aligarh and others AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1118 and Textile Association (India) Bombay Unit v. Balmohan Gopal Kurup and another AIR 1990 Supreme Court 2053.

( 5 ) IN the case of Indra Shanna (supra) it was held that the legal heirs inherited the tenancy rights as co-tenants and not as joint tenants. They have unity of possession but no unity of title. The order of eviction against one tenant is not binding against other co-tenants. In Mohd. Azeem (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that "where the original