R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. CM(M) 352/2004 is directed against the judgment and order dated of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) allowing RCA No.893/2002 filed against the order dated 16.11.2002 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (for short the Controller) dismissing the petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the).

2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the Tribunal, are that

Therespondent is a tenant in property bearing No.A-1, SardarNagar, CC Colony, New Delhi at a monthly rental of Rs. 363/- which rent was enhanced to Rs. 399.30 p. w.e.f. 1.12.1997.It was claimed that the respondent failed to pay the rent w.e.f. 1.4.97 despite service of notice dated 24.11.97, 18/26.12.97 and finally registered notice of demand dated 6.4.98.Along with Daryodh Singh, the legal representatives of deeceased Manohar Kaur, namely, Col. Parvinder Singh, Kulambir Singh, Smt. Birender Kaur and Smt. Jasvinder Kaur were arrayed as petitioner landlord.It was also pleaded in the petitionthat earlier an eviction petition was preferred against the respondent. In the said petition in Appeal No.711/76 Manohar Kaur v. K.B. Chibber, an order dated 17.11.76 was passed by which benefit of Section 14(2) of D.R.C. Act was given to the respondent.

The respondent contested the petition. Written statement was filed by the respondent.It was claimed by the respondent that appellant No. 1, Daryodh Singh, has nothing to do with the premises in question.He is neither the owner nor the landlord of the property and as such is not a necessary orproper party.It was claimed that the petition has not been filed by any competent person as it is neither signed nor filed by any of the remaining petitioners. None of the remaining petitioners are available or residing at D-2, Sardar Nagar which address has been furnished in the petition.It was claimed by the respondent that no legal or valid enforceable order under Section 15(1) of D.R.C. Act was passed against the respondent nor any legal or valid notice of demand has been served upon the respondent.It was claimed by the respondent that whole of the arrears of rent was sent by cheque under registered cover to Group Capt. Kulmanbir Singh but the said cheque was not encashed.In the petition name of Manohar Kaur whom the other petitioner represented has been wrongly shown as brother as she was already dead.The respondent claimed that the agreed rate of rent is Rs. 360/- per month.In pursuance of the notice dated 24.12.97 rent can be enhanced only w.e.f. 1.1.98.The respondent admitted that originally the premises were let by Daryodh Singh appellant No. 1 and late Manohar Kaur.Subsequently, Daryodh Singh continued the respondent that he had nothing to do with the suit property and that Manohar Kaur was the sole landlord.Property too stands in thename ofManohar Kaur in all the departments.Respondent was never informedof the death of Manohar Kaur.On 11.7.97 Major Avtar Singh, husband of Manohar Kaur, informed to the respondent that he was the legal successor of the property which belongs to Manohar Kaur and was entitled to receive the rent.Later the respondent was never informed of the demise of Major Avtar Singh nor the fact was mentioned in the notice dated 24.11.97.The cheques towards payment of rent have been encashed fraudulently even after the death of Major Avtar Singh.Respondent admitted the receipt of the notice dated 6.4.98.Respondent claimed that in compliance of the notice respondent had sent the rent by cheque which was not encashed.

3. It is argued by Counsel for the petitioners that the learned Controller has misdirected himself by holding that Daryodh Singh was not the landlord and consequently the petition not maintainable.He submits that the eviction petition was filed on behalf of Daryodh Singh as also by other legal representatives of the deceased, Manohar Kaur, and that Kulambir Singh appeared in Court in support of the petition and further that there being no dispute between the petitioners in the eviction petition, the landlord can hardly make a grievance of Daryodh Singh not being entitled to maintain the petition.On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent submits that Manohar Kaur in her lifetime had stated in previous proceedings that Daryodh Singh is not the landlord and that she was entitled to receive the rent and, therefore, the eviction petition filed by Daryodh Singh as landlord was not maintainable.

4. I have heard Counsel for the parties andgone through the judgments of the Courts below.The Tribunal has elaborately set out the facts and carefully gone into the material placed before it while arriving at the conclusion that in earlier petition the claim of the petitioner herein was that Daryodh Singh was the landlord to the exclusion of Manohar Kaur and that rent was being deposited with Daryodh Singh while in the present petition the petitioner has taken a somersaultand pleads that Daryodh Singh was not entitled to receive the rent.It was also noted that in the previous eviction proceedings a written statement had been filed by Daryodh Singh stating that Manohar Kaur was the owner entitled to receive the rent and that he was taking the proceedings on her behalf.This contention of DaryodhSingh was ultimately accepted and the Tribunal directed the petitioner to pay rent to Manohar Kaur in spite of the stand that Manohar Kaur was not entitled to rent as only Daryodh Singh could collect rent. The Tribunal has also noticed that reply to notice (Ex. PW-1/4) dated 4.12.1997, is addressed by the petitioner to Daryodh Singh in which the cheques on account of rent for the premises in question beingsent to Daryodh Singh. Further, even the legal representatives of Manohar Kaur have appeared in Court in support of the petition filed by Daryodh Singh. Further in cross-examination the petitioner has admitted that Daryodh Singhor his Munim used to collect rent and that the entire amount as claimed by notice of demand issued by Daryodh Singh has been paid.In face of these admissions it was hardly proper forthe tenant to contend that Daryodh Singhwas not competent to maintain the eviction petition on account of non-payment of rent.

5. I find that the aforesaid reasoning of the Tribunal suffers from no infirmity and, therefore, affirm the same.As regards the default, no meaningful argumenthas been addressed as the case was primarily confined to its maintainability. Even other wise, from a perusal of the judgment under challenge, I find that the Tribunal has elaborately considered the material on record and returned a finding that the petitioner is a habitual defaulter and, therefore, decreed the eviction petition.I find no fault with the reasoning advanced by the learned Tribunal and, therefore, dismissCM(M) 352/2004 and C.M. Appl. 3501/2004.No order as to costs.