P. K. BAHRI ( 1 ) THIS petition has been brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated July 29, 1992, of the Rent Control Tribunal by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the older dated February 28, 1992, of the Additional Rent Controller rejecting the application of the petitioners moved under Order IX Rule 13 of the, Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside of the ex-parte eviction order dated February 1, 1991. ( 2 ) FACTS of the case, in brief, are that the respondents- landlords had brought an eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement as contained in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act against their tenant Sh. Kirori Mal Goel on August 27, 1987. On service being effected on Sh-Kirori Mal Goel, in accordance with the provisions of section 25-B Shri Goel filed an application seeking leave to defend which came to be allowed vide order dated September 29,1987. He filed the written statement and thereafter he had moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to plead some new facts regarding construction of one more room by the respondents on the second floor of the house in question. The whole of the ground floor excluding the store and godown stood let out to Sh-Kirori Mal Goel. The respondents admittedly are residing on the first floor of the property in question. The application seeking amendment of the written statement was allowed on November 17,1988. Sh. R. D. Mahant, Advocate, was appearing for Kirori Mal Goel in the said case. The amended written statement was to be filed on February 8,1989, on which date Shri Mahant informed the court that his client Shri Goel was missing and his whereabouts were not known and was not traceable by his family members. He sought one more adjournment for filing the written statement and the case was adjourned to March 15,1989, on which date no appearance was put in on behalf of the tenant and the tenant was proceeded ex-parte and the case was adjourned to September 27,1989, for recording ex-parte evidence and then to April 30,1990 and again to January 30,1991, for the same purpose. On January 30,1991, after evidence had been recorded and arguments had been heard and case was fixed for orders that an application was moved by the wife of the tenant and three minor children of the tenant Master Abhishek Goel, Miss Dolly Goel and Miss Silky Goel for setting aside of me ex-parte proceedings and that application was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that as the case had been fixed for final orders, such an application was riot maintainable and even there was no locus standi to move such an application inasmuch as the tenant was not reported to have died and period of seven years had not lapsed since the date of missing of the tenant ( 3 ) THE revision filed against the said order dismissing the application was also dismissed. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court by filing an SLP which also came to be dismissed on the short point that after the final arguments had been heard and the case stood adjourned for announcing the order, an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable. The Supreme Court, however, mentioned in the order that the appellant was at liberty to move an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter an application was moved seeking setting aside of the ex-parte order which was passed on February 1,1991. ( 4 ) IT was mentioned in the application that wife of the tenant is a household lady and the children are minors and she never came to know about the filing of the eviction petition as long as her husband was looking after the affairs and it is only on January 28,1991, she came to know about the pendency of this eviction case and likelihood of an ex-parte eviction order being passed and thereafter she contacted Shri R. D. Mahant, Advocate, who con- firmed that the case was fixed for recording ex-parte evidence and thus, an application was moved for setting aside of ex-parte proceedings. The prayer was also made in the application for condonation of delay in moving the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The prayer was also made in the application for condonation of delay in moving the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 5 ) THE first contention raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal were legally not right in laying down that (he petitioners have no locus standi to move an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the tenant was not reported to have died and could not be considered to be legally dead as seven years period has not elapsed since the date of his missing. He has sought support from an order made by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1876/84, Smt Prakash Devi Vs Radhey Sham and Another, copy of that order has been placed on the record. This order was made by the Supreme Court while deciding the appeal against order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court made in Civil Revision No. 917/ 83, Anil Kumar and Others Vs Radhey Sham and Another, decided on January 2,1984. Copy of the said order is also placed on the record. ( 6 ) IT appears that in the said case the eviction petition under Section l3 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, was brought against one tenant-Sh. Anand Parkash, inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent. An ex-parte eviction order was obtained. The wife, sons and daughters of the tenant had moved an application even before the ex-parte eviction order was passed for being impleaded as respondents in the eviction case on the ground that Anand Parkash-tenant was missing for the last about 1 -3/4 years and his whereabouts were not known and it was genuinely apprehended that he had died. The application was dismissed on the ground that the wife, sons and the daughters had no locus standi to be impleaded as respondents as long as it was not proved that Sh. Anand Parkash- tenant had died. The first appellate authority also dismissed the appeal and so also the High Court. The application was dismissed on the ground that the wife, sons and the daughters had no locus standi to be impleaded as respondents as long as it was not proved that Sh. Anand Parkash- tenant had died. The first appellate authority also dismissed the appeal and so also the High Court. However, the Supreme Court set aside all these orders and also set aside the eviction order and directed that the wife, sons and daughters of the missing tenant be impleaded as respondents in the eviction petition and case be decided on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties. The facts of the said case are similar to the facts of the present case. ( 7 ) IT is evident from the record of the Additional Rent Controller that Shri R. D. Mahant, Advocate, had brought to the notice of the Additional Rent Controller that the tenant was missing and his whereabouts were not known even to his family members. If that was the fact which has not been controverted by the respondents, then it was incumbent upon therespondents to have impleaded the wife and the children of the missing tenant as party in the same way in which the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case had directed the wife, sons and daughters to be impleaded as respondents. There was no need for the wife and the children to have themselves come forward to be impleaded as respondents. The ratio which can be culled out from the order of the Supreme Court dated April 15,1985, in the aforesaid case of Smt. Prakash Devi (supra) is that where it is established that a particular tenant is missing and his whereabouts are not known, then in an eviction case pending against such a tenant his wife and children who have been residing with him be impleaded as respondents before deciding the case on merits. So, it was not necessary for the petitioners to have themselves come forward for being impleaded as party. It is true that they came forward but belatedly when arguments had been heard in the main case and orders had been reserved and thus, an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was held to be not maintainable. It is true that they came forward but belatedly when arguments had been heard in the main case and orders had been reserved and thus, an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was held to be not maintainable. Be that as it may, if the ratio is that wife and the children of the tenant who have been residing with the tenant become necessary parties in the eviction case against the tenant on tenant having been found to be missing then it becomes incumbent upon the landlord to bring such persons on record before further proceeding in the case. ( 8 ) SO, at any rate it is quite evident that both the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal were not legally right in holding that the petitioners have no locus standi in the matter. ( 9 ) IT has been argued on behalf of the respondents that petitioners have been sitting on the fence and were all along aware of the pendency of the eviction case and they did not care to come to the court for being impleaded as respondents as soon as tenant was found missing by them and thus, the discretionary remedy available under Article 227 of the Constitution should not be exercised in their favour. It is pointed out that registered summons which were issued in the eviction case had been received by the wife of the tenant. The record of the Additional Rent Controller bears out the said fact. The tenant has been served by ordinary process personally and by registered A. D. through his wife. Mere fact that the wife received the registered notice on behalf of the tenant would not lead to any inference that wife must have come to know about the filing of the eviction case. The tenant has been served by ordinary process personally and by registered A. D. through his wife. Mere fact that the wife received the registered notice on behalf of the tenant would not lead to any inference that wife must have come to know about the filing of the eviction case. Normally the husband is likely to inform about the filing of the eviction case to the wife when the relations of husband and wife are not stated to be strained, but in the present case the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed on a preliminary stage and no opportunity has been given to the petitioners to lead evidence to prove that in fact, petitioners were not aware of the pendency of the eviction case till January 28,1991 and how and in what manner they came to know about the pendency of the eviction case. ( 10 ) KEEPING in view the above facts, I conclude that ex-parte eviction order is liable to be set aside with the direction that petitioners be impleaded as parties in the eviction petition and the Additional Rent Controller should now proceed to decide the case from the stage of filing of the amended written statement. I, hence, allow this petition and set aside the impugned orders and also set aside the eviction order dated February 1,1991 and direct that the Additional Rent Controller should now, after impleading the petitioners as parties, proceed to decide the case from the stage of filing of the amended written statement The Additional Rent Controller shall give one opportunity to the petitioners to file the amended written statement in accordance with the amendment already allowed by the Additional Rent Controller vide order dated November 17,1988 and after obtaining the replication shall decide the eviction case in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Rent Controller for further proceedings on August 3,1993. Office to see that the Lower Court file is sent to the Additional Rent Controller before that date.