1. The petitioners herein in this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India are the tenants/respondents in a proceeding before the Additional Rent Controller from which this petition arises. The petition for eviction was filed by “Sir Ganga Ram Trust Society through Medical Supdt. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi”. The petitioner herein filed an application under Sections 47 & 18 of the Trust Act r/w Section 14(1) of the Rent Act stating that “to the best of the knowledge” of the petitioner herein, there were as many as 13 trustees of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital; that the petition for eviction had not been filed by them and the petition for eviction filed by the Medical Supdt. of the hospital was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. The respondent hospital filed a reply to the said application generally denying the contents thereof. It was merely reiterated that the Medical Suptd. was authorized by resolution of the respondent hospital to institute the petition for eviction. It was further stated that the said Medical Suptd. was also the Asstt. Secretary and who enjoyed the power to institute suits and eviction proceedings.

2. The aforesaid application was disposed of vide order dated 6th July, 2007 of the Rent Controller. The rent Controller proceeding on the premise that the respondent is a trust and relying upon the judgment of Division Bench of this court in Duli Chand Vs. M/s Mahabir Pershad Trilok Chand Charitable Trust, Delhi AIR 1984 Delhi 145, held that a trust being not a legal entity could not sue and could sue only through all the trustees. An opportunity was given to the respondent hospital to amend the petition for eviction. A perusal of the said order also shows that on the date on which the matter was reserved for orders on the said application, the respondent hospital filed documents before the Rent Controller to show that the respondent hospital was in fact a society, registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Controller held that the said documents having been filed after the orders had been reserved could not be considered and should be kept in abeyance. He also held that even if the said documents were taken into consideration, under Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act also the suit had to be instituted by all the trustees.

3. The respondent hospital however, instead of applying for amendment of the petition for eviction to have the petition for eviction instituted by all the trustees, applied for amendment of the petition for eviction to incorporate in column 19 thereof, sub para (ii), to state that the respondent hospital is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and can sue and can be sued and had vide resolution dated 19th November, 2001 authorized its Asstt. Secretary to institute the legal proceedings.

4. The aforesaid application for amendment of the petition for eviction came to be allowed on 19th November, 2007 when the petitioners herein were ex parte. There is no reference in the said order to the earlier order dated 6th July, 2007.

5. The petitioners thereafter joined the proceedings and moved an application under Section 151 of the CPC. It was the case of the petitioners in the said application that the petition for eviction, vide order dated 6th July, 2007 having been held to be not maintainable as instituted; that the respondent hospital had failed to carry out the amendments for which liberty was given in the said order dated 6th July, 2007; that in the circumstances, there was no petition before the court and the order of amendment could not have been made in a non-existent petition. The petitioners, therefore, sought dismissal of the petition for eviction.

6. The said application was disposed of by the Controller vide order dated 5th March, 2009 impugned in this petition. The Controller has held that the question whether the petitioner is a trust or a society and as to whether the petition for evicti