1. An order dated 3rd December 2009 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller ("ARC?) in Eviction Petition No. 26 of 2008 granting leave to the Respondents/tenants to defend the Eviction Petition preferred by the Petitioners under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("DRCA?) is challenged by the Petitioners/landlords by way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Background facts

2. The tenanted premises, which forms part of the property at 34 Hanuman Road, New Delhi, was let out to Diwan Hukam Chand Sahni, the Predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents/tenants by Shri R.S. Devi Dayal Mehra, the grandfather of Petitioner No.1 and father of Petitioner No.2 by way of a lease deed dated 23rd August 1941. The tenanted premises include three servant quarters and one garage. It appears that Shri Krishan Lal Malhotra and others came to occupy the tenanted premises as tenants and sometime in 1942 Shri Devi Dayal Mehra instituted proceedings in the court of the learned ARC against the extension of the tenancy for a period of 12 months from 1st August 1942. This application was rejected by an order dated 22nd November 1942 of the learned ARC.

3. On 10th August 1943 the learned ARC passed an order disallowing the objections raised by Shri Devi Dayal Mehra to the extension of the tenancy by a further period of one year on the ground that he was not satisfied that the tenanted premises was required by the landlord bonafide for occupation by himself and the members of his family. This order was affirmed by the order dated 28th October 1943 of the learned Chief Commissioner of Delhi („the Appellate Authority?). Eviction proceedings till 1970

4. A petition filed by Shri Devi Dayal Mehra seeking eviction of Shri Krishan Lal Malhotra and others on the grounds of non-payment of rent and misuse was rejected by the learned ARC by an order dated 29th July 1946. A formal order was later passed on 2nd August 1946 by the learned ARC.

5. Shri Devi Dayal Mehra instituted Case No. 429 of 1960 against Shri Tilak Raj Malhotra, the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents/tenants under Sections 14(1)(b), 14(1)(e) and 14(1)(k) of the DRCA on three grounds. The first was that the tenanted premises was, bonafidely required by the landlords for the residence of himself and his family. The second was that the tenant had misused the premises for non-residential purposes and the third was that the tenant had after 9th June 1952 sub let, assigned or otherwise parted with part of the tenanted premises to malis and dhobis without prior consent of the landlord. This petition was rejected by the learned ARC by an order dated 28th October 1963. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal („RCT?) by an order dated 13th May 1964. This was further confirmed with the dismissal on 28th May 1970 of the second appeal SAO No. 267-D of 1964 by this court.

6. The finding by this Court on Section 14(1) (e) DRCA was that the accommodation available with the landlord was more than sufficient for his needs and that he did not bonafide require the tenanted premises. As regards the ground urged in terms of Section 14(1)(a) DRCA, the parties entered into a compromise on 22nd May 1970. The second appeal qua that ground was disposed of by this Court in terms of the said compromise. The above compromise recorded the undertaking of the Appellant landlord that two tenants in the property would be removed and that an area of 1200 sq.ft. of the tenanted premises would continue to remain in possession of the landlord for which the landlord had compensated the Respondent @ Rs.45 per month. It is further agreed that the tenant would "continue to remain contractual tenant, on the same old terms and conditions, as agreed to with Dewan Hukam Chand vide lease deed dated 23rd August 1941, except the term as regards period." An application filed in the said second appeal by Shri Devi Dayal Mehra for placing on r