( 1 ) THE petitioner filed a petition under section 14 (l) (e) read with section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the respondents. Mr. Jagan Nath Sharma was the original tenant with respect to the premises in dispute. According to the petitioner the tenancy of Jagan Nath Sharma was terminated vide notice dated 5. 3. 1984. Jagan Nath Sharma died on 16. 8. 1985. The present petition was filed in March 1988. At the outset it was pointed out by the counsel for the respondents that Dharam Dev @ Pappi, respondent No. 3 in the petition died about three months back. It is not disputed that. the said Dharam Dev died unmarried and did not leave behind any heir of his own. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement at the Bar giving up the said respondent.

( 2 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the petition vide impugned judgment dated 30. 10. 92 holding that the tenancy of deceased Jagan Nath Sharma had not been terminated during his life time and, therefore, all the heirs of deceased Jagan Nath Sharma should have been impleaded as respondents. It was further observed in the impugned judgment that "it is incumbent on the petitioner to file a fresh petition impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased as tenant in the premises". The petition was disposed of accordingly. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed the present petition.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner the notice dated 5. 3. 1984 terminating the tenancy of Jagan Nath Sharma had been duly served on him and, therefore, the decision of the trial court to the contrary is not correct. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has first drawn my attention to the plea of the respondents in the written statement in this connection. In para 19 of the written statement it has been stated as under-

"it is denied that tenancy of Shri Jagan Nath Sharma was terminated vide notice dated 5th March 84 or any date or at any stage as alleged". In additional pleas, para 12 it has again been stated in written statement as under:-

"that it is denied that the contractual tenancy of late Shri Jagan Nath Sharma was terminated during his life time by notice dated 5th March 84 or at any time at all, by any legal or valid notice".

( 4 ) ON the basis of aforesaid pleadings it is urged that no specific plea has been taken that notice dated 5th March 84 was not received at all by deceased Jagan Nath Sharma. Apart from this I have been taken through the relevant portions of the impugned judgment to show that the reasoning adopted by the trial court in this behalf is not correct. Having carefully considered the reasoning adopted by the trial court in this connection I am of the view that the reasoning is totally erroneous and therefore it cannot be sustained. It is not disputed that the notice dated 5th March 1984 was sent by registered post on behalf of the petitioner. It is also not disputed even during the course of hearing before me that the address given in the notice of Jagan Nath Sharma is correct. The trial court appears to have been prejudiced by the fact that the notice is on a plain sheet of paper and not on the letter head of the advocate. Further a lot has been made out of the fact that the AD Card regarding notice does not contain the signatures of the addressee or that of any of his family members. It has also been noted that the AD Card does not contain postal stamps of Jawahar Nagar Post Office for its return journey. In this connection it has to be noted that section 106 of Transfer of Property Act which contains requirement of notice of termination of tenancy does not say that the notice must be sent by registered post. In any case there is no requirement of notice being sent by registered post with acknowledgment due. Therefore, the observations of the trial court relating to certain irregularities in the AD Card are not very material. So long as notice has