1. By present petition, the petitioner has assailed an order of learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal dated 23rd September, 2004 whereby the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal set aside the eviction order dated 4th February, 2002/21st February, 2002 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller.

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner (landlady) filed an eviction petition against respondents Sh. Om Prakash Gupta and Sh. Shrawan Kumar Lohia under Section 14 (1) (b) & (d) and Delhi Rent Control Act. She alleged that the premises in question was let out to respondent No.1, Sh. Om Prakash for residential purpose at monthly rent of Rs.25/- exclusive of water and electricity charges. The tenancy initially was a joint tenancy in the name of Sh. Om Prakash and his

father Sh. Narain Lal. Since Sh. Narain Lal died, the entire tenancy devolved upon his son Sh. Om Prakash and he became the exclusive tenant. The petitioner and her husband had purchased the premises on 21st April, 1982. She alleged that tenant/respondent No.1, Sh. Om Prakash along with his family had shifted from the tenanted premises at Delhi to his own premises at Charkhi Dadri, Haryana. He was an employee of Haryana Government and was living there. Neither respondent No.1 nor any of his family members was residing in the premises for a period of about 15 years and respondent No.1 had sublet and assigned/parted with the possession of the premises to respondent No.2, who was in exclusive possession of the premises as an unlawful sub-tenant at the time of filing of the suit.

3. Before filing eviction petition, an application was made before Competent Authority (Slums) by the petitioner seeking leave to file eviction petition, wherein respondent No.2 had pleaded that he was looking after the mother of respondent No.1, who was living in the premises and he was serving as a caretaker to her. Petitioner contended that this was a false stand and respondent No.2 was a sub-tenant. It was also contended that the respondents had caused substantial damage to the suit property by making unauthorized additions/alterations and converting varandha into a room. It was asserted in the leave application also that Sh. Om Prakash, respondent No.1 was serving in Canal Department of State of Haryana and was residing at Charkhi Dadri along with his family members in the house purchased by him in the name of his mother.

4. Respondents in the written statement to eviction petition took plea that Sh. Om Prakash and Sh. Narain Lal (son and father) were co-tenants in the suit property and after death of Sh. Narain Lal, his all legal heirs became co-tenants by operation of law and since they had not been impleaded, the eviction petition was not maintainable. The relationship of landlord and tenant was also disputed and it was stated that premises belonged to M/s. Parmeshwari Dass Vijay Kumar Jaipuria and the tenants were not informed about purchase of premises by the petitioner from the previous owner and no attornment was there. The extent of premises was also disputed and it was stated that the premises consisted of three rooms; varandha, open space on second floor and common user of open toilet of second floor and toilets on ground floor plus staircase leading from ground floor to second floor. Respondent No.1, however, admitted that he was residing at Charkhi Dadri, Haryana and was serving at Canal Department of State of Haryana. He, however, pleaded that his family members, namely, his mother Smt. Savitri Devi, his wife Smt. Hansa Devi and his son Mahesh Gupta were residing in the suit property along with respondent No.2, Sh. Sharwan Kumar, who was looking after them. It was averred that respondent No.2 was a nephew of Smt. Savitri Devi and being a near relation, his possession and possession of his family members was only as a licensee and they were living in the premises only to look after the famil