Vijender Jain ( 1 ) THE landlady obtained a decree of eviction against one Takhat Singh under Section 14 (l) (d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The said eviction order was passed on 21. 12. 1993. After the landlady applied for execution of the eviction order, warrant of possession was issued on 25. 2. 1994. On 30. 3. 1994 petitioner filed objections. It was contended by the objector (petitioner) in the objections that he was holding independent title of the tenancy premises No. 2277 A. The Additional Rent Controller vide its order dated 4. 1. 1997 dismissed the objections as misconceived. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, which was also dismissed on 5. 8. 1997. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioner preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this Court. Mr. Duggal has contended that without holding an inquiry when objection was filed by the petitioner, the dismissal of the objection was beyond the jurisdiction of the Additional Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order passed in this regard. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Indira Transport v. Rattan Lal and Ors. , 67 (1997) DLT 544 (DB) and Noorduddin v. Dr. D. L. Anand, 57 (1995) DLT 321 (SC ). There cannot be any dispute with the proposition of law as enunciated in these authorities. However, in view of the concurrent finding of the Courts below that the objection of the petitioner with regard to his allegation that he was holding independent title of tenancy premises No. 2277 A, the document which was filed by the petitioner pertains to property No. 2277. A solitary notice from the MCD will not affect the nature of the material which was brought before the Additional Rent Controller. No ground to interfere. Dismissed.