C. M. Nayar ( 1 ) THE present petition has been filed to impugn the order dated March 5, 1993, passed by Shri S. K. Sarvaria, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, by which he dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was filed in eviction petition No. E-435 of 1982 pending between respondents I to 4 and respondent No. 5. The eviction petition is being contested by respondent No. 5, Smt. Kunti Devi, and the above said application was filed by the present petitioner when the case was- at the stage of final arguments and the parties had already closed their defence. ( 2 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that it was moved by the petitioner to delay the disposal of the eviction petition, which was at the stage of final arguments. The petitioner alleged in para 5 of the application that she was the widow of Shri Mool Chand and has lived in the premises after the death of her husband as a co-tenant and never surrendered the possession or the tenancy rights. Therefore, she has every right, interest and title in the premises in dispute. The Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion after appreciation of facts that having resided in the premises since long, there is a presumption that she must be aware of the litigation pending since long. The petitioner must also be aware of the earlier eviction proceedings between respondents 1 to 4 and Shn 0m Parkash, son of the petitioner. She did not care to approach the Court to be impleaded as a party and in this view, she shall be deemed to have surrendered her rights, if any, assuming that the tenanted premises were originally let to Shri Mool Chand, the husband of the petitioner and not to her deceased son, 0m Parkash. ( 3 ). She did not care to approach the Court to be impleaded as a party and in this view, she shall be deemed to have surrendered her rights, if any, assuming that the tenanted premises were originally let to Shri Mool Chand, the husband of the petitioner and not to her deceased son, 0m Parkash. ( 3 ). The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended before me that the present application has been filed in accordance with law and the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as a plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence may be necessary inorder to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added: This is permissible the provisions of law as contained in Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code. He has cited in this regard the judgment of this Courtas reported in Gurtnaujsaranbalujav. Mrs. Joycec. Salim and Others AIR 1990 Delhi 13 and unreported judgment of Jaspal Singh,j. in C. M. (M)335 / 93 Shri Sandeep Shankar Mishra v. Sh. Kanutljit Malhotra and Others decided on September 28, 1993. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the application is highly belated as the evidence of both the parties have been closed and no explanation has been given for not filing the application earlier. The provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India apply where there is a failure of justice and 433 not to help a person who files the application malafide to delay the disposal of the case. He has further contended that on or about September 9, 1982, respondents I to 4 had filed eviction petition against Smt. Kunti Devi, respondent No. 5, on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. The plea taken was that Shri 0m Prakash, husband of Smt. Kunti Devi, respondent No. 5, was a tenant of the premises, that the premises had been let to him for residential purposes, that his tenancy had been terminated vide notice dated May 12, 1975 and that Smt. Kunti Devi being the spouse of the deceased/tenant had inherited the tenancy. The plea taken was that Shri 0m Prakash, husband of Smt. Kunti Devi, respondent No. 5, was a tenant of the premises, that the premises had been let to him for residential purposes, that his tenancy had been terminated vide notice dated May 12, 1975 and that Smt. Kunti Devi being the spouse of the deceased/tenant had inherited the tenancy. He has further reiterated that no rent receipt or other document had been produced by Smt. Kunti Devi, which may have shown that Shri Mool Chand who was husband of the petitioner was even a tenant in the premises. . He has filed copy of the judgment of the Court of Rent Controller, Delhi, in Suit No. 289-E/75 entitled Smt. Angoori Devi (now deceased) v. Shri 0m Prakash wherein the learned judge held that the contention that the petitioner Smt. Sharbati Devi was also a tenant jointly with her son Shri 0m Prakash had no value. Shri Mool Chand had died before the property was purchased by Smt. Angoori Devi and 0m Prakash was residing as a tenant in the portion of the premises at the rate of Rs. 22. 00 per month. There was no evidence that the petitioner s husband Shri Mool Chand was paying rent to the previous owner as a joint tenant. Smt. Sharbati Devi, mother-in-law of respondent No. 5 had not stepped into the witness box and had not said a word that she was a tenant in the suit premises. It will not be necessary for me to deal with this contention as admittedly, Smt. Sharbati Devi was not a party to the proceedings wherein she was held not to be the tenant of the suit premises, ( 5 ) I have considered the contentions of the parties. There is cogent reason for the Additional Rent Controller in not allowing the application of the petitioner for impleadment as a party on the ground that the same was filed belatedly and was with the purpose to delay the disposal of the Eviction Petition, which was at the stage of final arguments. The petitioner resided in the tenanted premises after the death of her husband and, admittedly, there is a presumption that she was fully aware of the litigation between the parties, which was going on for number of years. The petitioner resided in the tenanted premises after the death of her husband and, admittedly, there is a presumption that she was fully aware of the litigation between the parties, which was going on for number of years. It will be too late in the day to permit her to be impleaded as a party and start the proceedings afresh. There is no explanation for delay and the Trial Court validly rejected the application. In any case, the petitioner is protected by the provisions of Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and she will be at liberty to pursue her remedy in case she claimed an independent title to the premises and the situation so warranted. The authorities cited by the learned Counsel are based on their own facts and will have no application to the present case. ( 6 ) THERE is no jurisdictional error and illegality in the order which calls for interference of this Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed in limine Petition dismissed.