( 1 ) THESE are two connected matters pertaining to litigation between the same landlord and tenant and are being disposed of together.

( 2 ) THESE are the brief facts. On 23rd March, 1978, Mr. Ram Lal Kohli, the landlord of 164a, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, let out the above-mentioned property to two brothers, Mr. Yogesh Kumar and Mr. Krishan Kumar Aggarwal. The agreement of tenancy was for a period of three years.

( 3 ) SOMETIME in November, 1981 the landlord filed a petition under Section 14 (1) (d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "act"), which was numbered as 15 of 1982. Subsequently, on 1st June, 1983 he filed another petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act, which was numbered as 341 of 1983. Notice of this petition was served at Kanpur on Mr. Yogesh Kumar on 10th June, 1983. The notice sent to Mr. Krishan Kumar Aggarwal, at the same time, by registered post acknowledgment due was returned with the endorsement on the envelope dated 10th June, 1983, "refused". Notings on the envelope appear to indicate that service was sought to be effected earlier on 8th and 9th June, 1983.

( 4 ) ON 27th June, 1983, an application for leave to defend, apparently made by both the brothers, but signed only by Mr. Yogesh Kumar was moved. The power of attorney in favour of Mr. P. L. Pandey, Advocate,. was also signed only by Mr. Yogesh Kumar, However, is pertinent to note that Mr. P. L. Pandey was the Advocate of both the brothers in suit No. 15 of 1982, pertaining to the petition under Section 14 (1) (d) of the Act.

( 5 ) ON 7th September, 1983, Ms. Marnta Sehgal, Additional Rent Controller rejected the said application for leave to defend and passed an eviction order, but granted six months time to vacate the premises.

( 6 ) THEREAFTER, on 6th October, 1983, Mr. Krishan Kumar Aggarwal filed an application under Section 25b (9) of the Act for review of the order dated 7th September, 1983. On 20th February, 1984, he also filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code for review of the order dated 7th September, 1983. He filed yet another application on the same date under Section 25b of the Act for permission to contest the petition.

( 7 ) IN the meantime Mr. Yogesh Kumar filed Civil Revision No. 241 of 1984, challenging the order dated 7th September, 1983. The said civil revision was dismissed by this court on 17th April, 1984. The order of this. court was as follows :

"i have heard the parties and also perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of his application for leave to defend. I find that it does not disclose any fact which would disentitle the landlord to an order of eviction under Clause (e) of proviso of Section 14 (1) of the said Act. Dismissed".

( 8 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, on 25th April, 1984/2nd May, 1984, Mr. Yogesh Kumar filed an application under Order 41 Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, which he withdrew on 8th May, 1984. Consequently, Mr. Justice J. D. Jain ordered that it be dismissed as withdrawn.

( 9 ) THEREAFTER, on 30th January, 1985, the Additional Rent Controller, Mr. A. K. Garg decreed eviction suit No. 15 of 1982 filed by the landlord undersection 14 (1) (d) of the Act on the ground of non-residence, against both the brothers Mr. Yogesh and Mr. Krisha. n Kumar Aggarwal.

( 10 ) ON 27th Fcbrua. ry, 1985, Mr. M. L. Meista. Additional Reni Controller, dismissed the above-mentioned three applications moved by Mi. Krishan Kumar Aggarwal. The court observed that Mr. Ki-ishan Kumar Aggarwal had sought to make out a case on the ground that the original application for leave to defend and the acompanying affidavit" had not besn signed by him" and he had not been "served by ordinary process". The Additional Rent Controller found that summons bad been issued both in the ordinary way as well as by registered post and service had been effected by registered post as the endorsement on the envelope clearly indicated that it had b