( 1 ) THIS petition arises out of an order dated 20. 11. 1995 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute i. e. first floor and second floor of House No. 11/23, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of case are that the respondents/landlords are the co-owners of the said property. It is not in dispute that the premises were let out for residential purposes. The eviction of the petitioner was sought from both first floor and second floor of premises No. 11/23, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi on the ground of personal bona fide requirement of the respondents. The petitioner was granted leave to defend on his application for the purpose and the matter was finally disposed of in favour of the respondents. Mr. Sabhaiwal appearing for the petitioner has attacked the impugned order only on three grounds.

( 3 ) AS the first ground of attack, the petitioner alleges that the landlord is not the owner/co-owner of the premises in dispute as the property was sold by widow of the original owner of the premises in dispute. It is contended that the said widow had no right to transfer the property or deal with the property as her late husband had left behind a Will whereunder he had created a Trust and had bequeathed the property to that Trust. "the said alleged Will in original was never proved as required under law and the suit wherein the said Will was set up by father of the deceased had also been withdrawn. A certified copy of the said alleged Will was filed here but before the Addl. Rent Controller also the said Will was never proved. In other words this piece of document that is a copy of another copy has remained unproved and as such it is of no consequence. Admittedly the said Will was never probated. In the light of these facts no merits can be attributed to the plea of the petitioner. This plea is without any merit and is rejected.

( 4 ) THE second ground of attack raised by the petitioner is that the first floor and second floor premises were let out to the petitioner separately at different point of time and are covered by two distinct tenancies one relating to first floor and the second relating to second floor of the premises in dispute. The tenant/petitioner has stated that the tenancy being separate and distinct created at different times and relating to different premises i. e. first floor and second floor, the cause of action, if any, in respect of each tenancy was distinct and separate and one could not be joined with the other in the same proceedings. On his attention being drawn to Order 2 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure which reads as under, Mr. Sabharwal points out that the provisions of Order 2 Rule 3 could not be read in isolation and without reference to Order 2 Rule 4 and that for joining two distinct causes of action, leave of the Court was necessary which had not been obtained.

"o. 2 R. 3 - Joinder of causes of action.- (1) Save as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may unite in the same suit several causes of action against the same defendant, or the same defendants jointly; and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit. (2) Where causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the suit shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matters at the date of instituting the suit. "

( 5 ) ORDER 2 Rule 4 reads as under:

"0. 2 R. 4 - Only certain claims to be joined for recovery of immov- able property No cause of action shall, unless with the leave of the Court, be joined with a suit for the recovery of immovable property, except- 349 (a) claims for mesne profits or arrears of rent in respect of the property claimed or any part thereof, (b) claims for damages for breach of any contract under which the property or any part thereof is held; and (c) claims in which the relie