( 1 ) A very anomalous situation which sometimes arises in courts is whether an innocent party dragged into litigation should on account of technicalities of law be deprived of his rights or fruits of labour.

( 2 ) SHOP No. 1/b-7, Model Town, Delhi, is owned by one Jaswant Kaur. Gurjoginder Singh was a tenant under her in that shop. On February 19, 1971, Jaswant Kaur filed a petition for eviction of the tenant, Gurjoginder Singh, on the ground of non-payment of rent. An order for eviction was passed ex parte on July 22, 1971, and Jaswant Kaur took possession of the shop in execution of the warrant of possession in October, 1971. On October 26/27, 1971, Gurjoginder Singh moved an application under 0. 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code. for setting aside of the ex parte order of eviction against him. Notice of this application was issued to Jaswant Kaur. In the meanwhile on April 20, 1973, Jaswant Kaur entered into an agreement of tenancy with Sham Lal Dhingra, appellant, to let the aforesaid shop to him on a rent of Rs. 100. 00 Sham Lal Dhingra was inducted into the premises with effect from May 1, 1973, as a tenant under Jaswantkaur. Sham Lal Dhingra paid Rs. 8000. 00 by way of security to Jaswant Kaur. It is an admitted case that Sham Lal Dhingra did not know about the eviction of Gurjoginder Singh. The application under 0. 9. R. 13, Civil Procedure Code. moved by Gurjoginder Singh was dismissed by the trial. . Court on April 28, 1976, Gurjoginder Singh s appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal on December 6, 1976. Thus, the eviction petition filed by Jaswant Kaur on February 19, 1971, got revived after almost five years. Gurjoginder Singh then moved the Rent Controller on December 19, 1976, for restoration of the possession of the shop which had been taken in execution of the warrant of eviction. The Rent Controller granted this application on May 13, 1977, and directed issue of warrant of possession. Sham Lal Dhingra was unaware of these proceedings. When he came to know of them he filed objections under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, read with Section 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure on July 7, 1977, pleading that he was a tenant in his own right being a bona fide transferee from Jaswant Kaur, and, therefore, he could not be dispossessed. Sham Lal Dhingra s objections were dismissed by Rent Controller on July 30, 1977. An appeal to the Rent Control Tribunal was also dismissed on October 5, 1978. Sham Lal Dhingra now appeals to this court.

( 3 ) THE courts below have been prompted to dismiss the objections of Sham Lal Dhingra, appellant, and direct that possession of the shop be restored to Gurjoginder Singh on the basis of the rule enunciated in some Single Bench judgments of this court. The Rent Control Tribunal has referred to two decisions of this court. We may notice them and analyse what has been held and in what circumstances.

( 4 ) IN Jugal Kishore v. Maharaj Bahadur, 1978 Rajdhani, LR (Notes) 80, relied upon by the Rent Control Tribunal, our brother, Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J. ordered restoration of possession by invoking the principle contained in Section 144, C. P. C. in our respectful opinion, in the facts of the case the rule enunciated was correct. The appellant had used for eviction and obtained an ex parte order of eviction. In execution of the exparte order of eviction possession was taken on October 20, 1970. The tenant applied for setting aside of the ex part order but the application was dismissed. In appeal the tenant s application was granted. Thereupon the tenant applied for restitution of possession. The landlord resisted the application and, inter alia, pleaded that he had in the meantime rented out the premises to somebody else and it would be injustice to dispossess the new tenant it was held that the landlord could not take up this plea as the tenant had been dispossessed by an erroneous action and the landlord is bound to restore possession to the tenant in view of the provi