JUDGMENT R.S.PATHAK, CJI., (1) THIS is a tenants appeal arising out of a suit for eviction. (2) ON 24/05/1968 the landlord served a notice on the original tenant Prem Sarup Kapoor terminating his tenancy with effect from 30/06/1968. Prem Sarup Kapoor died on 8/08/1969 leaving behind awidow, as on, the sons wife and their two daughters, all of whom, it is not disputed, were living with Prem Sarup Kapoor in the premises under consideration. On 6/08/1970 the widow died. Thereafter, on 6/02/1974 the trial court decreed the suit for eviction. An appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 14/01/1975. The High court dismissed a second appeal on 30/01/1976. (3) THE point raised before us by learned counsel for the appellants is that on 8/06/1969 when the original tenant Prem Sarup Kapoor died all his heirs were entitled to succeed to the tenancy and the death of the widow on 6/08/1970 could make no difference to the right of the other heirs to continue in possession. On behalf of the respondent our attention has been drawn to the amendment introduced in the definition of the expression "tenant" in S. 2 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976. This amendment, which admittedly is retrospective in operation, limited the heirs entitled to the benefit of the tenancy on the death of the original tenant and the Explanations thereto laid down the order of succession as between the heirson such death. Having regard to the terms of the expression "tenant" as defined under the amended Act, it is clear that the appellants have no right to continue in the tenancy. It was only the widow who was entitled to succeed to the tenancy of Prem Sarup Kapoor, and it is that tenancy with which we are concerned. (4) IT is urged on behalf of the appellants that on 8/08/1968 when the original tenant Prem Sarup Kapoor died, the succession opened and all of them, including the appellants, were entitled to succeed to the tenancy, and any subsequent amendment of the statute could not effect the. rights of the heirs entitled to such succession. The argument is fallacious. The amendment was retrospective in all its consequences, and the amended definition of the expression "tenant" must be deemed to have ruled on the date when the succession opened. (5) THE appeal is dismissed. rights of the heirs entitled to such succession. The argument is fallacious. The amendment was retrospective in all its consequences, and the amended definition of the expression "tenant" must be deemed to have ruled on the date when the succession opened. (5) THE appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances, there will no order as to costs. (6) WE direct, however, that the appellants will not be dispossessed until 31/12/1988 provided the appellants file an undertaking within three weeks from today in the usual terms. If no such undertaking is furnished within three weeks from today, it will be open to the respondents to execute the decree for eviction forthwith.