1. Respondent Ram Laxman Gupta filed execution petitions No.659 of 1972 and 657 of 1972 against the petitioners herein in respect of shops forming part of property bearing number 52/36, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5 under Clause 14(1) (k) of Delhi Rent Control Act. In both the eviction petitions, the order of eviction was passed against the petitioners herein on 19th July, 1975 by 5th Additional Rent Controller. The appeals against the said orders were dismissed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal on 20th July, 1978. However, the learned Rent Control Tribunal directed the petitioners herein vide his order to deposit within one month the amount/ user charges as mentioned in the order with the landlord and the landlord was directed to pay the amount to the Government and the landlord was also directed to move to DDA two months before 31st December 1978 for knowing the directions of the government with regard to the conditions of breaches in respect of the period after December, 31 1978 and in case the government (DDA) was prepared to condone the breach conditionally, the permission shall be obtained from the government and conditional communicated to the tenant and the tenant would have to pay the amount that may be demanded and comply with conditions imposed by the government for such condo nation. However, if the government made it clear that no further condo nation of breaches would be permitted beyond 31st December 1978, the landlord shall communicate this decision of the government to the petitioners and the petitioners shall stop misusage of the premises within one month from that date and in such a case the provisions of Clause 14(1) (k) of DRC Act would be satisfied but in case the petitioners (tenants) failed to comply with the condition or failed to deposit or pay the amount, then eviction order shall be deemed to have been passed against the petitioners (tenants). The petitioners preferred a second appeal against the eviction order being SAO 310 of 1978. This appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 28th September 1978. 2. Since the government had refused to condone the misusage after 31st December 1978, the landlord took execution. In execution, the petitioners filed objections. These objections were dismissed vide order dated 22nd February 1985 by the learned Additional Rent Controller. Against the order dated 22nd February 1985, the petitioners (tenants) filed RCA No.261 of 1985 and 262 of 1985. Both these appeals were accepted by the learned Rent Control Tribunal vide order dated 26th March, 1985 and in this order, the learned Rent Control Tribunal gave following directions:

“For these reasons given above I accept these appeals and set aside the impugned order. It is directed that the learned trial court shall issue notices to the Delhi Development Authority to enquire in terms of the order of my learned predecessor as to whether the breaches can be condoned temporarily and if so, on what terms. In accordance with that, if possible the appellant tenant can be called upon to pay the misuse charges. It shall else enquire if the Delhi Development Authority has made it clear that no further condo nation is permitted even on temporary basis and thereafter the necessary orders can be passed. The parties are directed to appear in the trial court on 12.4.1985 because already a very long date has been fixed.”

3. The review applications filed by the landlord against the said order were dismissed by learned Rent Control Tribunal. Thereafter, in response to the notice issued under Section 14(11) of the DRC Act by the learned Rent Control Tribunal, DDA filed reply and statement dated 20th January 1987 and stated that further condo nation was not permitted. On 13th March, 1987, tenants (petitioners herein) filed application for directions to DDA to file reply to various queries incorporated in the application. DDA filed rely to the application and taking into account the statement and reply filed by DDA,