V.B.Gupta, J. -- Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside order dated 26th March, 2010 passed by Ms. Bimla Makin, District Judge-VIII, Rent Control Tribunal (for short as ‘Tribunal’) Delhi and in consequence thereof set aside orders dated 16th October, 2008, 8th September, 2008, 12th May, 2008 and 14th January, 2008 passed by Mr. Amit Kumar, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi and further to set aside order dated 8th May, 2008, passed by Sh. Chander Sekhar, Rent Control Tribunal.

2. The facts as apparent from the record of this case are that, respondent no. 1 Sh. Bharat Singh (Since deceased) and respondent no. 2 Sh. Kirpa Ram (Since deceased) filed an eviction petition on the grounds under Section 14 (1) (a), (c) and (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short as Act) stating that suit property i.e Shop no. 2081, on plot no. 16, Narela Mandi, Narela, Delhi, was let out to petitioner nos. 1 and 2 (since deceased ) at a monthly rent of Rs.66/10/ 9 and the same had not been paid by petitioner nos. 1 and 2 since 1st July, 1962 for which recovery suit was instituted against them. It was further alleged that rent from 1st July 1962 is due as on date of filing of this petition (2nd March, 1996).

3. It was also alleged that property was let out for commercial purposes but petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are using part of it for residential purposes which is detrimental to the respondents interest and petitioners have caused or permitted to cause substantial damage to the suit property.

4. It was further alleged that 1/3rd share in this shop had been sold to Sh. Tara Chand (since deceased), respondent no. 3 herein, on 5th June, 1965 by way of registered Sale Deed. No relief was claimed against respondent no. 3.

5. Respondent no. 3 never appeared before the trial court and always remained ex parte.

6. In the written statement filed by present petitioners, they took the plea that they are the owners of this property as they have purchased it from Smt. Bhagirathi, who was also one of the co-owners apart from the respondents and thus they are not liable to pay any rent to the respondents being co-owner of this property.

7. Other defence taken in the written statement was that property has been used for shop, godown and residence since start of the tenancy and there is no nuisance or detrimental use against the interest of the respondents. Further no substantial damage has ever been caused by the petitioners.

8. The eviction petition was initially adjourned sine-die on 5th November, 1964 for the reasons that the title of the property was in dispute which could only be settled by Civil Court. Hence the parties were directed to establish their title and then reopen the case.

9. Thereafter, there was series of litigations between the parties which attained finality on 3rd August, 2000 when Special Leave Petition filed by present petitioners against judgment of this Court given in RFA No. 345/1979 and RFA No. 19/1971, was dismissed.

10. Prior to that, this Court in litigation between respondents and petitioner no. 2 pronounced its judgment on 1st December, 1999 in RFA No. 19/1971, RFA No. 16/1971 and RFA No. 345/1979, wherein it was held that respondents are owner of this property and petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have no right, title and interest in this property. The suit of respondents was decreed by this Court and that of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed.

11. It is worthwhile to mention here that all the original parties in this case have expired and their legal heirs have been brought on record in SAO No. 231/84, which was second appeal filed by respondents against order of Additional Rent Controller (for short as ‘Controller’)

12. On 14th January, 2008, in the eviction petition, the Controller passed an order under Section 15 (1) of the Act holding; "That respondents are entitled to the arrears of rent and as such petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were directed to pay rent or deposit the r