JUDGMENT
H.C. Goel, J.
(1) The first point raised by Mr. Mathur is that the authorities below were in error in holding that the petition for eviction as originally filed by M/s.Dau Dayal Dwarka Dass and others did not stand abated on the failure of the legal representatives of Mohan Lal is not having: filed the amended petition for eject lent as, directed by the Rent Controller. The petition for eviction was filed by M/s. Dau Dayal Dwarka Dass through five persons, two of whom namely. Mohan Lal and Mukesh Lal had signed and verified the petition. Mohan Lal died during the pendency of the petition on which his legal representatives were ordered to be brought on the record on the application of Mukesh Lal, attorney of the petitioners, having been filed in that regard. Mr. Mathur submitted that it was incumbent on the remaining petitioners and the legal representatives of the deceased Mohan Lal to have filed an amended petition and that not having been done by them, their filing of a revised memo of parties wherein they included the names of the legal representatives of Mohan Lal deceased Along with them as petitioners, was not sufficient for saving the petition from abatement. It was submitted that out of the two persons who signed the petition Mohan Lal had died and Mukesh Lal had signed the petition only as an attorney of the remaining petitioners. There is absolutely no substance in this submission and the; authorities below were right in rejecting the submission. It has come on the record that the petitioner was a partnership firm and Mukesh Lal was the attorney of the firm. Therefore, on the death of Mohan Lal who was one of the partners of the firm, his legal representatives need not have been brought on the record in view of the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4(1), of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, even if the five persons who filed the petition on behalf of M/s. Dau Dayal Dwarka Dass and others as joint landlords of the respondent, the death of one of them did not affect the right of the remaining four joint landlords in maintaining the petition even without the legal representatives of Mohan Lal deceased having been brought on the record. Lastly the legal representatives of Mohan Lal deceased were brought on the record when the court accepted the application of Mukesh Lal attorney of the petitioners in that behalf and no amendment as such was required to be made and the filing of the revised memo of parties wherein the names of the legal representatives of Mohan Lal deceased were added to the remaining petitioners was itself sufficient compliance of the direction of the Rent Controller with regard to the filing of the amended petition]
(2) Mr. Mathur next submitted that the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal were wrong in not entertaining the plea of the respondent that he was entitled to show that no order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’) ought to have been pasted against the respondent and that as such the final judgment of the Rent Controller in passing the order of ejectment of the respondent on the ground that the respondent had not complied with the order under Section 15(1) of the Act was illegal. This argument is also wholly devoid of any merit. No doubt in the application under Section 15(7) of the Act as moved by the petitioners for striking out the defense of the respondent it was open to the respondent to show that the order under Section 15(1) was erroneously passed against him. However, once the order under Section 15(1) had become final and the order under Section 15(7) had also become final it was no longer available to the respondent again to urge before the Rent Controller at the final hearing of the petition for eviction which was filed on the sole ground of the respondent not having paid or tendered the arrears of rent that the order under Section 15(1) as passed by the Rent Controller and which had become final was a bad order. The order under Section 15(1) had become final and un-assailable as the respondent did not go in appeal against that order and when his challenge to that order in the application under Section 15(1) also failed up to the Rent Control Tribunal and which order was also not appealed against by the respondent. At that point of time the order under Section 15(1) became final as between the parties. The order of the Tribunal affirming the order of the Rent Controller whereby the latter rejected the contention of the respondent in the application under Section 15(1) that the order passed under Section 15(1) was illegal operated as res judicial on that question in the subsequent proceedings, namely at the final hearing of the main petition for eviction. No question of law. much less a substantial question of law, is involved in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in liming.