Vipin Sanghi, J.

C.M. No. 3068/2008

.1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

.Caveat No. 47/2008

.2. Since the respondent-caveator has appeared, the caveat stands disposed off C.M.(M) No. 268/2008

3. This petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner against the order dated 13.2.2008 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short `ARCT) Rohini Courts, Delhi in RCA No. 44/2006. By the impugned order the petitioners appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act) against the order dated 3.11.2006 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, (ARC for short), has been dismissed. The learned ARC had dismissed the petitioners objections under Section 25 of the Act to the execution of an eviction order passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act in favour of respondent No. 1, Shri Mohan Malhotra against the judgment debtor, who is respondent No. 2 herein viz. Shri Ravi Diwan.

4. Respondent No. 1, Shri Mohan Malhotra filed the aforesaid eviction petition against respondent No. 2 Shri Ravi Diwan. The property had been let out by the erstwhile owner of the said property Shri Lakshmi Narain Khattar to Shri Hansraj Diwan. Respondent No. 1 purchased the said property in the year 1989 from Shri Lakshmi Narain Khattar with the aforesaid tenant in the property. The original tenant Shri Hansraj Diwan died some time in the year 1995. The admitted position is that respondent No. 2 was residing in the suit premises at the time of, and after the death of Shri Hansraj Diwan. The aforesaid eviction petition was contested by respondent No. 2 The eviction petition came to be allowed and a revision petition under Section 25B was preferred before this Court. During the pendency of the revision petition preferred against the eviction order by the the judgment debtor, possession was taken in execution by the landlord respondent No. 1. However, at the instance of the Judgment Debtor (respondent No. 2 herein) the same was thereafter restored under the orders of this Court and the judgment debtor were put back in possession. Ultimately the said revision petition was dismissed. Objections were thereafter, filed by the petitioners on the ground that they were also the legal heirs of Late Shri Hansraj Diwan and had inherited the tenancy rights along with respondent No. 2 Shri Ravi Diwan, and they had an independent title to the suit property. Their case was that the eviction order could not be executed against them since they were not parties to the eviction proceedings. These objections were dismissed by the learned ARC, and by the impugned order the learned ARCT has also rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners.

.5. The contention of the petitioners before the Courts below was that there was collusion between the landlord respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, and that respondent No. 2 deliberately did not defend the eviction proceedings effectively

.and enabled the passing of an eviction order in favour of respondent No. 1. The petitioners relied on a decision of this Court in Mohd. Idrees and Anr. v. Mst. Nathi (deceased) through LRs 19 (2001) DLT 274 to contend that it was not material that some of the legal heirs of the deceased tenants were not residing in the tenanted premises, and that in any event they were necessary parties to the eviction petition as they too had inherited the tenancy rights alongwith those heirs of the tenant who were in use and occupation of the tenanted premises with the deceased tenant at the time of his death. Reliance was also placed on another decision in the case of Basheshar Nath v. Smt. S. Bikram 1980 (2) RCR 456, a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, where a decree of ejectment was passed against the wife of the deceased tenant but the daughter was not made a party. The Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the daughter also inherited the tenancy rights in her own right.

6. On the other hand the submission of the re