Vijender Jain. J. (Oral) ( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 1. 12. 1998, the landlord/petitioner has filed this revision petition. The case set out by the petitioner was that the previous owner of the property in question served a notice dated 12. 8. 1969 which was duly served on the tenant Net Ram. The present petitioner along with his wife purchased the property somewhere in 1987. In 1996 eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was filed. That petition was filed on 4. 5. 1996, which was marked to the Addl. Rent Controller on 6. 5. 1998. These dates are important as on 6. 5. 1996 the petitioner filed the AD card of the notice dated 12. 8. 1969 and reply to said notice sent by Net Ram. The leave to defend application was filed by Smt. Champa Devi widow of Net Ram. That application was dismissed on 16. 9. 1996. An order of eviction was passed against Champa Devi. Aggrieved by the said order, Champa Devi filed a Civil Revision Petition in the High Court which was disposed of vide order dated 5. 9. 1997 in he following terms : "the impugned order is challenged on two counts firstly the petitioner is not he owner of the premises in question and secondly the requirement of the petitioner is not bona fide. I have perused the record of the Court below. As far as the contention with regard to the ownership of the petitioner is concerned, two sale deeds vide which the property in question is said to have been purchased by the petitioner are on the record. Looking to the size of the petitioner s family and the number of rooms especially the size thereof, the order passed by the learned A. R. C. does not appear to have been suffering from any illegality so as to call for interference. The petition is devoid of merit. Dismissed. However, the present petitioner/tenant is granted time till 31st March, 1998 to vacate the premises in question. The decree shall not be executed till then. PETITION stands disposed of accordingly. " ( 2 ) IN spite of the order of the High Court granting time to vacate the premises by 31st March, 1998, the premises were not vacated by the tenant. The decree shall not be executed till then. PETITION stands disposed of accordingly. " ( 2 ) IN spite of the order of the High Court granting time to vacate the premises by 31st March, 1998, the premises were not vacated by the tenant. When the premises were not vacated the petitioner filed the execution application before the Addl. Rent Controller. ( 3 ) AFTER execution was filed, objections were filed on behalf of Mukesh, s/o Jai Kishan, Renu, d/o Jai Kishan, Satish Kumar, s/o Jai Kishan and Radha, w/o Jai Kishan. Jai Kishan was son of Net Ram. Objections were dismissed by the Addl. Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the objections, the objectors filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal set aside the order of the Addl. Rent Controller and remanded the case back to the trial court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that in view of notice dated 12. 8. 1969 duly served, being on record, the AD card being also on record which bears the signature of Net Ram, along with the reply sent by Net Ram, the notice as well as service on Net Ram thereof was established beyond any doubt. Once the tenancy of a tenant is terminated in the life time of a tenant then the tenancy is heritable in terms of the relevant provisions of Rent Control Act. Therefore, the Rent Control Tribunal fell in error by holding that the Addl. Rent Controller has not held that the notice dated 12. 8. 1969 was served upon Net Ram. On the other hand, Mr. Sistani, learned counsel for the objector/respondent has contended that there is no definite finding by the Addl. Rent Controller with regard to the service of notice dated 12. 8. 1969. Mr. Sistani has further contended that as a matter of fact, keeping in view date of the notice which was served 18 years back, the Rent Control Tribunal has rightly remanded the case back so that the parties could lead evidence to establish whether the notice was served on Net Ram or not. ( 5 ) I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. ( 5 ) I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. The whole controversy revolves around on the fact whether notice dated 12. 8. 1969 was served on Net Ram or not? Whether the order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller was ambiguous on that score. let us have a look to the order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller. The same is to the following effect: "the arguments that other LRs of Shri Net Ram, had not been arrayed as respondent and therefore, petition is not maintainable does not hold good in view of the fact that the tenancy of Shri Net Ram is claimed to have been terminated vide notice dated 12. 8. 1969. The petitioner have filed original reply sent on behalf of Shri Net Ram. They have also filed the original AD card. These documents were filed on 6. 5. 1996 that is the date on which the petition was put up before me for the first time. The petition was filed on 4. 5. 1996. In the entire application for leave to defend it is no where claimed by the respondent that the Ad cord does not bear the signature of her husband or that the reply dated 30. 8. 1969 was not sent on behalf of her husband. " ( 6 ) IN view of the specific discussion, to say that the order does not clearly stated that the notice dated 12. 8. 1969 was served on Net Ram, is contrary to the record. Before parting with the judgment, I must observe that after passing the order by the High Court in CR No. 30/97 on 5. 9. 1997, rejoinder was filed on behalf of Champa Devi by Satish Kumar, who was pursuing the matter on behalf of Champa Devi, he is one of the objectors. For the reasons stated above, the order of the Rent Control Tribunal is bad in law and the same is set aside. ( 7 ) REVISION Petition is allowed.