SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) CM No. 15042/2004 in CM (M) NO. 355/2003 respondent no1. is stated to be the sole proprietorship of Mr. Nanak chand Dawar. The firm is stated to have been closed almost 10 years ago and the sole proprietor has passed away. Respondent no. 2 is the wife of Mr. Nanak chand Dawar who has also passed away. Respondent No. 3 is the son of Mr. Nanak chand Dawar and is stated to be the only legal representative and would thus represent the estate of the deceased father and the mother including the sole proprietorship concern. The said respondent has not appeared despite service and is proceeded ex parte.

( 2 ) THE application filed by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 2 of the code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein-after referred to as the said Code) is for causing an entry to be made to record that only respondent no. 3 is entitled to defend the petition. The application is accordingly allowed. CM (M) No. 355/2003 cm (M) No. 358/2003 1. A common question of law has arisen in both the petitions wherein a common order has been passed by the trial court and the appellate tribunal. 2. The petitioner landlord originally filed eviction petitions under section 1