( 1 ) [petitioner bought suit property on 22. 12. 61. It was in the occupation of 4 respondents and one Gurdas Ram as tenants. He sued the tenants U/s 14 (1) (e) claiming requirement for his family members of 11. Shri P. K. Bahri, ARC, allowed petition against Gurdas but dismissed same against Abbi and Chawla holding that need for father, brother and sister was not bona fide. Similarly Sh. K. B. Andley. ARC, dismissed petitions against Katyal and Chand Kaur. 5 appeals were taken to Tribunal which were dismissed. Landlord alone filed appeals in High Court. Katyal gave possession during pendency of appeal. ] SAO 223/72, 225/72 and 226/72 were adjudged thus :- SAO 223 of 1972. The respondents to this appeal are the legal representatives of the original tenant Om Parkash Chawla. Even before the Tribunal, Om Parkash Chawla had died, so his legal representatives had been brought on record by the order of Tribunal dated 23rd of July, 1970. It was so urged by Shri Bhatia, the counsel for the respondent, that the appeal against Om Parkash Chawla was barred by time before the Rent Control Tribunal and, therefore, the present appeal by the appellant automatically is not maintai