IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3623 OF 2001

Smt. Shashi Jain                                     .....       Appellant

Versus

Tarsem Lal (Dead) & Anr.                             .....   Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Lokeshwar Singh   Panta  , J.   

1] This appeal by special leave has been filed by Smt. Shashi

Jain-landlady,  assailing  the  final  judgment  and  order  dated

23.04.1998 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at

Chandigarh in Civil Revision No. 4062 of 1997.

2] The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are as follows:-

2.1) On 24.07.1961, the mother of Smt. Shashi Jain-landlady-

appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “landlady”] had inducted

Tarsem Lal  as  a  tenant  in  the  premises,  i.e.  House  No.  971,

Block-1  consisting  of  three  rooms,  one  verandah,  attached

courtyard,  open  space  and  latrine,  etc.  situated  on  Rajpura

Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, on a monthly rent of Rs.30/-  vide

written  rent  deed  (Ex.-AW5/A].   On 12.11.1973,  Khushi  Ram

had submitted  application  Form D-1 in  the  office  of  the  Civil

Supply  Officer  for  getting  ration  card  to  his  family  members

namely Smt. Lajwanti – wife, Tarsem Lal, Janak Raj, Harbans

Lal, Kewal Krishan- sons and Avinash Kumari - daughter-in-law

who  all  were  living  together  in  the  demised  premises  on

01.04.1970, mother of the landlady suffered a consent decree of

the court in regard to the demised premises jointly passed in

favour  of  the  landlady  and  her  brother.   Because  of  non-

registration of  the said decree,  ownership rights could not  be

transferred in the name of the landlady and her brother.

2.2) On 14.03.1974,  the  mother  of  the landlady preferred  an

application for ejectment of Tarsem Lal-tenant on the ground of

arrears of rent w.e.f April 1973 to May 1974, which amount later

on  was  tendered  by  the  tenant  in  the  court.   Again  on

01.10.1974,  the  mother  of  the  landlady  had  filed  second

application for ejectment of the tenant for non-payment of rent

from June 1974 to October 1974.

2

3) It was the case of the landlady before the Rent Controller

that the tenant did not tender the arrears of rent as claimed.

The  Rent  Controller,  Ludhiana,  passed  an  ejectment  order

against the tenant.  On appeal, the First Appellate Authority set

aside the said order and held that since the landlady and her

brother  had  already  become  the  landlords  of  the  demised

premises, therefore, Tarsem Lal has to be held a tenant under

them.  The order of the First Appellate Authority was upheld by

the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  on  11.04.1980.   The

special  leave  petition  preferred  against  the  order  of  the  High

Court came to be dismissed by this Court.

4) On 22.05.1982, the landlady had preferred an application

under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,

1949 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rent Act”] for the ejectment

of Tarsem Lal-tenant, inter alia, on the following grounds:-

[a] That  respondent  no.1  was  in  arrears   of  rent w.e.f. June 1974 onwards.

[b] That  the  respondent  no.1  had  converted  the demised premises into the residence of the family of his married brother and sister, whereas it was rented out to him for his personal residence.

3

[c] That the landlady required the demised premises for her own personal use and occupation and also for use and occupation of her aged mother.

It appears from the record that later on by way of amendment,  additional  ground  was  also incorporated in the ejectment application, which read as under:

[d] That  the  respondent  no.  1  without  the  written consent of the landlady had sub-let the demised premises  to  Rakesh  Kumar-respondent  no.  2, who  is  employed  in  Punjab  Agricultural University as a messenger boy.

5] It  was  also  the  case  of  the  landlady  before  the  Rent

Controller  that  Rakesh  Kumar  on  30.08.1983  had  given  a

declaration  in  writing  to  his  Department  that  he  is  paying

Rs.150/- as monthly rent of the demised premises.  Tarsem Lal

the  original  tenant  had  shifted  his  residence  in  two  rooms

located at the backside of his ‘Dhaba’ (Restaurant].  Before that,

the  father  of  Rakesh  Kumar  used  to  reside  in  the  demised

premises  and  was  drawing  house  rent  from  the  Punjab

Agricultural  University,  where  he  was  employed  as  Tube-well

Operator, in regard to the portion of the demised premises.  

6) Tarsem Lal-tenant  and  Rakesh  Kumar-respondent  no.  2

herein both appeared before the Rent Controller on the date of

4

hearing of the application and tendered arrears  of rent which

amount  was  accepted  by  the  landlady.   The  claim  of  non-

payment of rent, therefore, has been rendered satisfied.   

7) Tarsem Lal-tenant  filed written  statement  to the eviction

application  raising  inter  alia preliminary  objections:  [i]  there

exists  no  relationship  of  landlady  and  tenant  between  them,

[ii]  Rakesh  Kumar  was  not  a  necessary  party  and  has  been

wrongly impleaded in the eviction proceedings, [iii] the eviction

petition was bad for partial  ejectment,  [iv]  bad for non-joinder

and mis-joinder of necessary parties and [v] that the landlady

could  not  take  advantage  of  her  own  act  and  conduct.   He

denied  the  averments  of  sub-letting  of  any  portion  of  the

demised  premises  to  Rakesh  Kumar.   He  stated  that  Rakesh

Kumar was residing as a tenant in a portion of building bearing

no.  1138/2  situated  in  village  Rajpura,  Tehsil  &  District

Ludhiana  and  before  that,  he  used  to  reside  with  him  as  a

licensee being his sister’s son.  It was further asserted that since

the inception of tenancy, the mother of Rakesh Kumar had been

residing with him in the demised premises.  

5

8) On merits, the tenant denied the ownership rights of the

property  in  dispute  of  Smt.  Santosh  Kumari,  mother  of  the

landlady.  He has also denied the averments that mother of the

landlady had let out three rooms and a verandah to him on a

monthly  rent  of  Rs.30/-  from  July  1961.   According  to  the

tenant,  he was in occupation of three  rooms,  verandah, open

space,  one bathroom, one latrine and kitchen.   It  was denied

that any suit was filed by the landlady and her brother against

their  mother  Smt. Santosh Kumari for declaration, which was

later  on  decreed.   The  tenant,  however,  admitted  that  the

mother  of  the landlady filed the ejectment  application against

him,  which  was  allowed  by  the  Rent  Controller.   The  First

Appellate Authority set side the order of eviction passed by the

Rent Controller which was upheld by the High Court.  He denied

the  claim  of  the  landlady  that  she  bona  fide requires  the

demised  premises  for  her  personal  use  and  occupation

alongwith her aged mother.  He pleaded that the landlady is a

permanent  resident  of  Chandigarh  and  she  is  in  service  of

Punjab  School  Education Board.   It  was  also  stated  that  the

landlady has got other residential buildings in Ludhiana town,

6

which are in the possession of her brother and mother.  He also

submitted that Rakesh Kumar his sister’s son was born in the

premises  in  dispute  and  he  has  not  sub-let  the  demised

premises  to Rakesh Kumar.   He denied the averments  of the

landlady that the father of Rakesh Kumar used to reside in the

demised  premises  when  he  was  an  employee  of  Punjab

Agricultural  University,  Ludhiana.   It  was,  however,  admitted

that  Rakesh  Kumar  is  employed  in  Punjab  Agricultural

University, Ludhiana.

9) The  landlady  then  filed  re-application  controverting  and

contradicting the averments of the written statement filed by the

tenant and reiterating and re-ascertaining the averments made

in  the  application  for  eviction  of  the  tenant.   On  the

controversial  pleadings  of  the  parties,  the  Rent  Controller

framed following issues:

[1] Whether  the  petitioner  requires  the  demised premises bonafide for her own use and occupation? OPA.

[2] Whether the demised premises are being used for  the  purpose  other  than  for  which  these  were leased? OPA.

7

[3] Whether  respondent  no.1  without  the  written consent  of  petitioner,  has  sub-let  the  demised premises in favour of respondent no. 2? OPA.

[4] Whether  there  exists  relationship  of  landlady and  tenant  between  the  petitioner  and  respondent no. 1? OPA.

[5] Whether the tender made is invalid? OPA.

[6] Whether the findings of the Hon’ble High Court in  Civil  Revision  No.  1096  of  1977  operate  as  res judicata to the present petition OPR.

[7] Whether  the  respondent  is  estopped  from challenging the relationship in between petitioner and respondent no. 1? OPA.

[8] Whether  the  petition  is  not  maintainable  as alleged? OPR.

[9] Whether  the  petition  is  bad  for  partial ejectment? OPR.

[10] Whether  the  petitioner  is  estopped  by her  act and  conduct  to  file  the  petition  against  respondent no. 2? OPR.

[11] Whether  the  petition is  bad for  non-joinder  of necessary parties? OPR.

[12] Relief.

10) The parties went to trial and led their evidence.  On the

main question of bona fide requirement of the demised premises

by  the  landlady  for  her  own use  and  occupation,  the  Rent

8

Controller,  Ludhiana,  had  not  found  the  evidence  of  the

landlady appearing as AW-1 and supported by the evidence of

her  mother- AW-5, reliable and acceptable.  Therefore, the first

Issue  was  decided  against  the  landlady  and  in  favour  of  the

tenant.   Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were  decided in favour of  the

tenant  and against  the landlady.  Finding against  Issue  No.  4

was recorded in favour of the landlady and against the tenant.

Issue No. 6 was not pressed by the tenant and therefore, it was

decided in favour of the landlady and against  the tenant.   In

view of the findings on Issue Nos. 4 and 6, Issue Nos. 7 and 8

were rendered as redundant.  Issue No. 9 was not pressed by

the tenant and it was, accordingly, decided against him and in

favour  of  the  landlady.   The  Rent  Controller  in  view  of  the

finding  on  issue  no.  3  held  Issue  No.  10  having  become

redundant.  The tenant did not press Issue No. 11 and therefore,

it was decided against him and in favour of the landlady.  The

Rent Controller, on the basis of the findings recorded on Issue

Nos. 1 and 3, dismissed the petition of the landlady for eviction

of the tenant leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

9

11) Being aggrieved  against  the  order  of  the  Rent  Controller

dated 29.03.1995, the landlady filed appeal before the Appellate

Authority, Ludhiana.  The Appellate Authority by its order dated

06.02.1997  dismissed  the  appeal  with  costs  and  thereby

affirmed the order of the Rent Controller.  In addition, counsel

fee was assessed at Rs. 1,000/-.

12) Feeling  aggrieved  thereby,  the  landlady  filed  Revision

Petition under Section  15 [5] of the Rent Act before  the  High

Court.   The  learned  Single  Judge  by  order  dated  23.04.1998

dismissed the said revision petition.  The order of the High Court

reads as under:

“The  petitioner  seeks  eviction  of  the  respondent  on the ground that she bona fide requires the property in question  and  the  other  ground  pressed  is  that  the tenant-respondent  no.  1 has sublet  the  property  to respondent no. 2.

Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have returned the findings adverse to the petitioner. The  findings  of  facts  by  the  courts  are  based  on evidence.  They cannot be described to be erroneous and absurd to permit  this  court  to  interfere  in  the present  Revision  Petition.   In  these  circumstances, there is no ground to interfere.  Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.”  

13) Now, the landlady has filed this appeal by special leave.

10

14) During the pendency of this appeal, Tarsem Lal – tenant,

who was a bachelor expired on 17.07.1999. I. A. No.1 of 2000

has been filed by Janak Raj, Kewal Krishan - brothers and Satya

Devi - sister of deceased Tarsem Lal, praying for bringing them

on record as legal representatives of the deceased.  

15) We  have  heard  the  landlady  –  appellant  appearing  in

person  and  argued  the  appeal  and  Mr.  M.N.  Krishnamani,

learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Rakesh Kumar-

respondent  no.  2 herein.   Primarily  and mainly  following  two

points have fallen for consideration of this Court:

[i]  Whether the landlady-appellant has proved on record that she  bona fide  requires the demised premises for her personal use and occupation? and

[ii] Whether  the deceased Tarsem Lal  – the tenant  without  the  consent  of  the landlady  had  sub-let  the  demised premises  to  Rakesh  Kumar-respondent no.2.

16) We propose to scrutinize the evidence independently led by

the parties before the Rent Controller, before we deal with rival

contentions raised before us.  This exercise on our part becomes

necessary to find out whether the authorities below in exercise

11

of  their  statutory  functions  and  jurisdiction  have  appreciated

the  evidence  properly  and  in  right  perspective  or  the  vital

evidence led by the landlady in support of her case has been

ignored which has caused grave miscarriage  of justice to her.

The above  extracted  order  of  the  High Court  reveals  that  the

Revision Petition of the landlady was dismissed mainly on the

ground  that  the  Rent  Controller  as  well  as  the  Appellate

Authority  both  have  rendered  concurrent  findings  of  facts;

therefore, no interference was called for in the said orders of the

authorities below.  The order of the High Court does not deal

with  the  ground  of  challenge  made  by  the  landlady  in  her

revision petition and the contentions raised by the parties before

it, nor the order contains clear findings on the points in issue.

The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction ought to

have  recorded  its  independent  findings  on  merits  after

considering all  points raised by the parties before it based on

the assessment of the evidence by the authorities below.  

POINT NO. 1

17] In  support  of  her  claim of  bona fide  requirement  of  the

demised premises, the landlady in her deposition as AW-1 has

12

categorically  stated  that  Tarsem Lal  -  tenant  had  shifted  his

residence from the demised premises finally to a new residence

consisting of two rooms located at the back side of his ‘Dhaba’.

AW-5 the  mother  of  the  landlady corroborated  her  testimony.

The  Rent  Controller  and  the  Appellate  Authority  rejected  the

claim of  requirement  of  the  premises  in dispute  made by the

landlady  on  flimsy  and  untangible  ground  holding  that  the

landlady was residing at Mohali  the place of her posting as a

teacher  in  Education  Board.   It  was  the  specific  case  of  the

landlady that she in fact  was residing at  Mohali  in one room

because  of  her  employment  as  a  Government  Servant  and

occasionally she used to visit Ludhiana to look after her mother.

It  was  established  by  the  landlady  that  had  she  got  the

possession of  the demised premises from the tenant when he

had shifted to his new residence located at the back side of the

‘Dhaba’, she could have immediately occupied the premises and

started  living  along  with  her  old  mother  therein.  It  is  her

evidence that had she got the vacant possession of the demised

premises,  she  would  have  commuted  from  Ludhiana  to

Chandigarh to attend her official duties as the distance between

13

these  two  places  is  neither  far-off  nor  time  consuming.   The

tenant could not rebut and controvert the acceptable evidence of

the landlady on any material aspect.  On the contrary, it finds

stated in paragraph 10 of the order of the Rent Controller that

the tenant and his brothers who appeared as RW - 7 and RW - 8

respectively, have admitted the said statement of AW landlady.

The  Rent  Controller  and  the  Appellate  Authority  rejected  the

claim of the landlady on the point of  bona fide requirement, on

the other ground holding that the mother of the landlady is the

owner of one more house at Ludhiana, which was in occupation

of the brother of the mother of the landlady and the house could

be shared by the landlady and her mother.  During the course of

the hearing of this appeal, the landlady has admitted before this

Court that she has since retired from the Government Service

and presently she is residing with her sister at Chandigarh and

now she intends to reside in her own house at Ludhiana.  It has

been  proved  by  the  landlady  that  her  mother  being  an  old

woman has to be looked after by her in her house at Ludhiana.

The evidence led by the landlady clearly proves that Tarsem Lal,

had  stopped  living  in  the  demised  premises  and  as  noticed

14

above he had shifted to his new residence located at the back of

his ‘Dhaba’.  The landlady categorically stated in her statement

that  a  house  owned  by  her  parents  located  in  Field  Ganj,

Ludhiana is unfit and unsafe for habitation of landlady and her

aged ailing mother.  The house is in dilapidated condition and

there exist no open space, no sun light and air in that part of

the  area  as  the  house  is  located  near  railway  line  and  daily

smoke  and  dust  of  running  trains  will  be  very  harmful  and

injurious for the health of her mother who is a chronic patient of

Asthma and high blood pressure.   It  is also proved on record

that  the  landlady’s  mother’s  house  situated  at  Shahpur  is  in

industrial area and is in possession of the tenants inducted by

the maternal uncle of the landlady.  It is also proved on record

that  the  Rent  Controller,  Chandigarh  has  passed  ejectment

order in regard to one room on the first floor of House No. 454,

Sector 15-A, Chandigarh, which was occupied by the landlady at

the time of her employment in Government job at Mohali.

18] It  is  not  in  dispute  that  Tarsem  Lal  –  tenant  was  an

unmarried man and during the pendency of this appeal he has

died.  The landlady has pleaded and proved by leading reliable,

15

positive and acceptable evidence that she is in urgent need of

the demised property for her  bona fide  use and occupation in

terms of Section 13 (3)(a)(i)(a) of the Rent Act.

POINT NO.2

19] In support of this point, the landlady has proved on record

that  Shri  Satpal,   father  of  Rakesh  Kumar–respondent  had

shifted in the demised premises along with his family members

about ten years after  Chinese aggression in the year 1973-74

and  then  Shri  Satpal  got  employment  in  Punjab  Agricultural

University  at  Ludhiana  as  Tubewell  Operator.   The  Rent

Controller  as  well  as  the  First  Appellate  Authority  have  not

properly appreciated the evidence of the landlady and wrongly

concluded that Rakesh Kumar – respondent became sub-lessee

in the year 1973 without appreciating and considering the fact

that in the year 1973 Rakesh Kumar was a minor and could not

execute agreement of tenancy.  It  was the specific case of the

landlady  that  Rakesh  Kumar  was  inducted  as  sub-tenant  by

Tarsem Lal in the year 1983 after Rakesh Kumar on the death of

his  father  Satpal  got  employment  in  Punjab  Agricultural

University,  Ludhiana.  It  is  proved on record that Tarsem Lal

16

had parted with the possession of two rooms and verandah of

the  demised  premises  to  Rakesh  Kumar  –  respondent  for  a

consideration of Rs. 150/- per month as rent.  The landlady has

proved on record pro forma D-1 prescribed for the employees of

Punjab  Agricultural  University,  Ludhiana,  for  drawal  of  the

house  rent  allowance  (Ex.  AW/1a)  which  would  prove  that

Rakesh  Kumar –  respondent  has  been  drawing  a  sum of  Rs.

150/- per month as rent for unfurnished accommodation of the

demised  premises.   Application  Form  D-1  dated  12.11.1973

prescribed  for  distribution  card  of  food  grain  and  sugar

submitted  by  Khushi  Ram  father  of  Tarsem  Lal  was

acknowledged on 29.07.1975 by a Clerk in the Office of the Food

Supply, Ludhiana.  On bare perusal of Ex. AW-1/1 produced on

record  by  the  landlady,  it  becomes  crystal  clear  that  Khushi

Ram, his wife Lajwanti, Tarsem Lal, Janak Raj, Kewal Krishna -

sons and one Avinash Kumari – daughter in law of Khushi Ram

were living in the demised premises.  Further document – D1

would show that Rakesh Kumar – respondent was not residing

with his mother in the demised premises since the inception of

the  tenancy as held  by the  Rent Controller  in  his  order.  The

17

Appellate  Authority,  in  our  view,  has  failed  to  apply  its

independent  mind and merely  stamped the  order  of  the  Rent

Controller without giving independent reasons for upholding the

said order.  The statement of Tarsem Lal that his sister and her

son Rakesh  Kumar –  respondent  were  living  with  him at  the

time of inception of the tenancy has been wrongly relied upon by

the  Rent  Controller  which  is  contrary  to  the  documentary

evidence Form D-1 attached with (Exhibit AW 1/1).  The Rent

Controller and the Appellate Authority as well as the High Court

have gravely erred in not appreciating and considering the fact

that payment of rent by a sub-tenant to the tenant is always a

secret arrangement between them and as stated above, Rakesh

Kumar – respondent has been receiving a sum of Rs. 150/- per

month as rent from his employer of the demised premises.  The

statement of Smt. Satya Devi – RW 5, sister of Tarsem Lal that

she was residing with her  son in the demised premises since

1961 has  been  wrongly  accepted  by authorities  below as  her

statement  too is wholly  contrary to the documentary  evidence

Form D1 placed  on record  and proved  by  the  landlady along

with Ex. AW1/1.  Satnam Rai – RW 7, the Sub Inspector of Food

18

and Supplies  Department has proved on record Form Ex. RW

7/1, Certificate Exhibit RW 7/2, entries from register Ex. RW 3,

Exhibit RW 7/4 and ration card Exhibit R-8 which would prove

that in the year 1973, Tarsem Lal- tenant was residing in the

demised premises along with his father and brothers etc. whose

names  find  mentioned  in  form D-1.   Thus,  the  documentary

evidence on record, belies the oral version of Tarsem Lal and his

sister Satya Devi–RW 5 that Rakesh Kumar was residing in the

house in dispute along with her right from the day of his birth

i.e. 27.11.1962 till the application for eviction of the tenant was

filed by landlady before the Rent Controller in the year 1982.  

20] In the backdrop of  the above  stated evidence  led by the

landlady, the plea of the appellant that Tarsem Lal had sublet

the premises in dispute to Rakesh Kumar without her written

consent  has  been  proved  by  her  by  leading  reliable  and

convincing evidence.   In the facts and circumstances, Rakesh

Kumar – respondent is held to be liable to be evicted from the

demised  premises  in  terms  of  the  provisions  contained  in

Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Rent Act.  The Rent Controller as well

as  the  First  Appellate  Authority  have  failed  to  appreciate  the

19

evidence of the landlady in right perspective.  The High Court in

exercise of its revisional jurisdiction has power to satisfy itself as

to whether the question of subletting which is a question of law

was properly decided by the courts below based on the evidence,

but the order shows that  the High Court has legally  failed  to

exercise  its  revisional  jurisdiction  in  dismissing  the  revision

petition of the landlady without assigning independent reasons

and  also  not  taking  into  consideration  the  perversity  and

infirmity of the order of the Rent Controller as confirmed by the

Appellate  Authority  based  upon  misreading  and  mis-

appreciation of the evidence on record.  This Court in exercise of

its jurisdiction in this appeal will not be over-reaching its power

in appreciating the evidence on record to find out whether the

order of the authorities below as confirmed by the High Court

are perverse not based upon proper and legitimate appreciation

of the evidence on record led by the landlady which orders have

caused miscarriage of justice to the landlady.

21] The  contention  of  Mr.  M.N.  Krishnamani,  learned  senior

counsel  appearing   for  Rakesh Kumar –  respondent  that  this

Court  shall  not  be  obliged  to  interfere  with  the  concurrent

20

findings of fact arrived at by the three courts below cannot be

accepted for the aforesaid reasons.   

22] In the result,  this appeal deserves and it is, accordingly,

allowed.   The  order  of  the  Rent  Controller,  Ludhiana,  dated

24.03.1995  passed  in  RA  No.  71  and  order  of  the  Appellate

Authority, in Rent Appeal No. 2/21-4/1995 dated 6.2.1997 as

well as the unreasoned order of the High Court dated 23.4.1998

passed in Civil Revision No. 4062/1997 are all quashed and set

aside.  As a consequence thereof, the application for eviction of

Rakesh Kumar – respondent, son of Satpal filed by the land lady

–  appellant  under  Section  13  of  the  Rent  Act  is  accordingly,

allowed on the grounds available to her under Section 13(3)(a)(i)

(a) and Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Rent Act.

23] The  landlady,  therefore,  is  held  entitled  for  eviction  of

Rakesh Kumar -  respondent  from the suit  premises.   Rakesh

Kumar  and/or  any  other  person  claiming  any  right,  title  or

interest in the demised premises are directed to hand over the

vacant possession of the premises in dispute to Ms. Shashi Jain,

the landlady on or before 31st May,  2009.  In default  thereof,

Rakesh Kumar – respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 500/- per

21

day as mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation of the

demised premises after the stipulated day of 31st May, 2009 till

the  day  the  vacant  possession  is  not  handed  over  to  the

landlady.

24] Rakesh  Kumar  –  respondent  shall  also  pay  costs  of

Rs. 5000/- to the landlady.    

I. A. No. 1 of 2000

25] In view of  the final  disposal  of  the  appeal  on merits,  no

order  is  required  to  be  passed  on  this  application  seeking

substitution  of  the  legal  representatives  of  Tarsem  Lal  -

deceased.  

........................................J.                                                 (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

........................................J.                                                 (B. Sudershan Reddy)

New Delhi, March 31, 2009.

22