SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) THESE second appeals arise from the orders passed by the Rent Control tribunal dated 30. 03. 1987 whereby the appeals filed by the respondent/landlord were allowed by a common judgment/order. ( 2 ) TWO sets of appellants are tenants in respect of one room each on the ground floor of the premises no. 4/8 WEA Karol Bagh New Delhi stated to be let out at a monthly rent of Rs 25 and 40 respectively besides electricity charges. The tenants were stated to be in arrears of rent from 01. 04. 1974 to 31. 03. 1977 and the respondent/landlord filed proceedings for eviction against the appellants herein under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as the said Act ). The prerequisite for filing of the eviction proceedings being a notice of demand of the arrears of rent was stated to have been sent on 13. 09. 1976 through counsel. In this behalf, it may be added that the original landlord/petitioner was one Sh. Bakshish Singh and the respondent herein is stated to have purchased the property in pursuance to an agreement to sell dated 17. 02. 1984 resulting in a sale deed dated 25. 02. 1984. ( 3 ) IN response to the averment in the original eviction petition about such a demand notice dated 13. 09. 1976 being sent, the stand of the appellants was that the said notice was received to which a reply had been sent. It was pleaded by the appellants that the occasion to pay the rent did not arise since there was no proper demand on behalf of the landlord. ( 4 ) IN respect of the aforesaid, the plea was that one Sh. Labh Singh had been realizing rent from appellants who was the landlord and the appellants were not aware about the existence of Sh. Bakshish Singh. The legal notice which was sent on 13. 09. 1976 was sent by Sh. Bakshish Singh through his attorney Sh. Jawahar Singh who had never contacted the appellants for collection of rent. Sh. Bakshish Singh was also alleged to have never given any notice of the purchase of the property. On the evidence being led, it was found that no reply had actually been sent by the appellants. The plea of the appellants, however, remained that Sh. Jawahar Singh who had never contacted the appellants for collection of rent. Sh. Bakshish Singh was also alleged to have never given any notice of the purchase of the property. On the evidence being led, it was found that no reply had actually been sent by the appellants. The plea of the appellants, however, remained that Sh. Jawahar Singh had never demanded rent but in the testimony of sh. Jawahar Singh it has come out that he did demand rent, but the same was not paid. ( 5 ) THE Additional Rent Controller found against the respondent on the ground that the landlord/his attorney had not shown sufficient proof to the tenants for claiming the rent. The First Appellate Court of the Tribunal has set aside this finding. If the impugned order of the Tribunal is perused, the finding has been arrived at primarily on the basis that if the appellants had any doubt about the authority of Sh. Bakshish Singh or his attorney Sh. Jawahar Singh, it was open to them to demand through a reply that the document of title and the authority giving the attorney the right to receive rent be shown. The appellants had alleged that a reply had been sent which found to be false subsequently. The appellants had also not taken steps to deposit rent in Court under Section 27 of the said Act. The appellants were found thus in default of rent. The benefit of Section 14 (2) of the said Act was made available to the appellants. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has again sought to urge that it was the duty of the Sh. Bakshish Singh or Sh. Jawahar Singh to have established their status before they approached the Court of the Additional Rent Controller. I am unable to accept the plea for the reason that undisputedly one Sh. Labh Singh was recovering the rent. Sh. Labh Singh is stated to have been acting as an attorney of Sh. Bakshish Singh. Even otherwise when the notice was served through counsel on 13. 09. 1976 by Sh. Bakshish Singh through Sh. Jawahar Singh it was open to the appellants to have demanded some authority from them. The appellants failed to do so though their stand in the original written statement was that they had sent a reply. Bakshish Singh. Even otherwise when the notice was served through counsel on 13. 09. 1976 by Sh. Bakshish Singh through Sh. Jawahar Singh it was open to the appellants to have demanded some authority from them. The appellants failed to do so though their stand in the original written statement was that they had sent a reply. The testimony of Jawahar Singh shows that he had shown such authority though there is nothing in writing to show that the appellants ever demanded such authority in reply to the notice. The testimony of Jawahar Singh further establishes that he had demanded the rent and shown authority to the tenants. In my considered view no question of law is raised in this behalf so as to call for any interference since the present appeals can only be on a question of law in view of Section39 of the said Act. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants also sought to emphasize on the provision of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in furtherance of the plea that the sale deed executed in favour of the present respondent did not give it the right to recover the rent due to the earlier landlord. In my considered view this plea would have no ramification on the present case as the question is whether the appellants defaulted in payment of rent in pursuance to a valid demand notice albeit by the earlier landlord. If they are in default, then the right to claim recovery of possession for default in payment of rent which arose in favour of the earlier landlord would also be available to the subsequent purchaser being the respondent. ( 8 ) I find no merit in these appeals. The same are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.