( 1 ) C. M. (M) 192 of 2001 challenges order dated 22. 1. 2001 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ) in R. C. A. No. 47 of 1997 whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the appeal holding - "the appeal is accordingly partly allowed. The respondent shall deposit the rent up-to- date in the Court below within one month of the date of this order. In case of any dispute about non-deposit of the rent, they shall appear before this Court so that controversy about the rent up-to-date is finally settled. In the event deposit is to the satisfaction of the appellant, benefit of Section 14 (2), DRC Act shall be extended to the respondent and in the event it is not upto the satisfaction, final appropriate order shall be passed by this Court in the event in dispute".

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as have been noted by the Tribunal, are as follows:"1. An eviction petition was preferred by the appellant against the respondent under Section 14 (1) (a) r/w Section 14 (1) (c) of the DRC Act. The Court below dismissed the petition of the appellant. An appeal has been preferred against the order of the Court below. During the course of the arguments only the order of the Court below with respect to Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act has been questioned before me. The order of the court below with respect to the ground available under Section 14 (1) (c) of the DRC Act has not been questioned. It is final. To that extent the petition shall stand dismissed. 2. The facts relevant for the purposes of petition under Section 14 (1) (a) are that the respondent Yashpal was inducted as a tenant in the property bearing No. R-868, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. He was originally a tenant of Smt. Kesar Devi who is the mother of the appellant as well as one Shri Banwari Lal. It is admitted before me by the parties that Smt. Kesar Devi died on 11. 8. 76.

( 3 ) UNDER the law of inheritance the right devolved upon the brothers. The appellant claimed that the right to the property fell upon the appellant since a Will was executed by Smt. Kesar Devi on 30. 5. 76 in which the property was given to the appellant. Sh. Banwari Lal, however, claimed that Will was executed by the mother in which equal rights to the property were given to the appellant as well as Banwari Lal. Since there were two wills, the matter was taken up before the Probate Court. In the Probate court the will of Banwari Lal was accepted and the Will propounded by the appellant was rejected. The matter has been taken up now before the hon ble High Court where the rights of the owners created by the alleged wills is pending consideration. In the order in Probate division which was passed by the learned District Judge Banwari Lal was made the executor of the Will. He also claimed that the rights to take action against the tenant be extended to him. It is also not in dispute that the respondent paid the rent to the appellant for the period 1. 8. 89 to 31. 1. 90 and since thereafter the rent was not paid by the respondent to the appellant. It is also not disputed that a notice of demand dated 10. 3. 93 was served by the appellant on the respondent. Notice is Ex. AW1/4. In this notice appellant had made a demand w. e. f. 1. 2. 92 to 28. 2. 93. It is also not disputed that the respondent after the period of the notice sent to the appellant half of the amount by cheque which was not encashed by the appellant. Today it is not questioned before me that a notice dated 29. 3. 93 Ex. RW 1/2 was also received by the respondent on behalf of Banwari Lal issued by M/s. Diwan and company Advocates calling upon the respondent to pay him 50% share of the entire arrears of rent within two months of the receipt of notice. The respondent was, thus, faced with two notices. One notice is dated 10. 3. 93 on behalf of the appellant making a demand of the full rent and the another notice on behalf of Banwari Lal dated 29. 3. 93 making a demand of 50% of the rent by Banwari Lal. T