J.S. Narang, J. - The facts which need to be noticed are that a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been filed by respondent No. 1 "Shri Balwant Rai Tayal" against M/s Subhash Oil Company through its partner Shri Varinder Kumar Tayal son of Shri Balwant Rai Tayal and Shri Raghu Nath Sahai. Respondent No. 1 claimed that he is the owner and landlord of the demised property which had been rented out to M/s. Subhash Oil Company a partnership firm. The ejectment had been asked for on the ground that respondents are in arrears of rent since January 1, 1995, the respondents have materially diminished the value and utility of the demised premises and that the respondents have unauthorisedly constructed rooms but on the said ground earlier application filed had been dismissed vide order May 27, 1994 and that at the time of filing the present application for eviction the against appeal the said order is stated to be pending before the Appellate Authority. It is noticed in the eviction order dated February 27, 1998 passed by the learned Rent Controller that the notice of the application was served and that the said respondents were represented by a counsel but later on no one appeared and a sequel thereto ex parte proceedings had been ordered vide order dated March 19, 1997.

2. In this view of the matter the eviction petition was tried and decided without any issues having been struck between the parties and only on the ex parte evidence led by the landlord i.e. Shri Balwant Rai Tayal.

3. It is this order against which the present petitioners were aggrieved and the appeal had been filed on May 21, 1998. The claim of the appellant- petitioner is that M/s. Subhash Oil Company was no doubt a partnership concern and that there were three partners namely Varinder Kumar Tayal, Phool Chand and Raghu Nath Sahai. It is alleged that Shri Varinder Kumar Tayal retired from the partnership w.e.f. January 31, 1972 and that the deed of retirement was executed on March 27, 1972. Thereafter, Raghunath Sahai also retired from the said partnership w.e.f. December 15, 1975. Resultantly, the said firm became the sole proprietary concern of Shri Phool Chand. It is further alleged that there is inter se litigation between the parties which is pending in various civil Courts but the factual and effective possession of the assets of the firm has been that of Shri Phool Chand. It is also disclosed that Shri Phool Chand died on June 1, 1995 and that the present petitioners succeed to the assets and all kind of rights of Shri Phool Chand in accordance with law. As such, being the proper and necessary parties should have been impleaded before the learned Rent Controller. The order having been obtained without the necessary party having been impleaded, the eviction order against the firm named in the order is not sustainable. However, the petitioners claimed themselves aggrieved of the order and, therefore, challenged the same by way of appeal under Section 15(2) of the Act. It shall be apposite to notice the relevant portion of the provision which is reproduced below :-

"15. Appellate and revisional authorities. - (1) The State Government may, by a general or special order, by notification, confer on such officers and authorities as it may think fit, the powers of appellate authorities for the purposes of this Act, in such area or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order.

(2) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within thirty days from the date of such order or such longer period as the Appellate Authority may allow for reasons to be recorded in writing, prefer an appeal in writing to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction. In computing the period of thirty days the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded.

(3) to (6) xxx xx xxx xx"

4. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on