Judgment K. Kannan, J. 1. The revision petition is against the order reversing a judgment of the Rent Controller and allowing the appeal filed by the tenant, who claimed that he was not a tenant of the demised premises. The landlord filed the petition for eviction on the ground of nonpayment of rent, subletting and change of user. The landlord relied on a rent note said to have been executed by the tenant Partap Singh. The Rent Controller held that the rent note had been proved by examination of the scribe, the witness having already died and held that tenant had not paid the rent and that he had allowed somebody else to remain in property. The petition for eviction was ordered which in an appeal filed by the legal representatives of the tenant was reversed on a plea that the rent note had not been established. The Court's finding was that Gurdial Singh, the husband of the landlord admitted in his evidence that his wife and sisters rented out the property to Partap Singh in the year 1945 and without any definite evidence available about when the property was taken back, the plea of lease in favour of the tenant was not established. Taking the evidence of Gurdial Singh himself as constituting admission that Partap Singh was the tenant and with no evidence having been available as to how the property came back to the landlord for him to create a fresh lease, the Court held that tenancy had not been established and reversed the decision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would read the judgments of both the Courts below with passion to point out that the rent note had been properly proved and the Appellate Court was not justified in reversing the finding regarding the rent note. The counsel would admit that there was no proof of payment of rent at any point of time but the rent note itself was sufficient to create a valid jural relationship that would estop the tenant from setting up title in another person. When the tenant died during the pendency of the proceedings, the son, who had been impleaded, contended that rent note had been signed by his father by administration of liquor and he had actually been tenant only under Partap Singh. When the tenant died during the pendency of the proceedings, the son, who had been impleaded, contended that rent note had been signed by his father by administration of liquor and he had actually been tenant only under Partap Singh. The rent receipts had been filed and exhibited as evidence and the Court held that the respondent was a tenant of only Partap Singh and the tenancy had not been established in favour of the petitioner. 3. During the pendency of the revision petition, the landlord has also expired and the legal representatives have been added and a reply has been filed to the application pointing out to the fact that the petition mentioned property has been sold in the year 1994 to one Joginder Pal and he has been in possession of one portion of property while the tenant himself is in possession of another portion. According to the respondent, the petitioners are not even the present owners of the property to prosecute the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would counter this assertion by the respondent by pointing out that the property described in the sale deed, which is relied on by the respondent, has nothing to do with the disputed property and therefore, there is no truth in the contention that the petitioner cannot maintain the petition. He also would contend even the area mentioned in the document is different. 5. There is truly a difficulty in assessing the actual identity of the property. The property does not have a khasra number and the contention of whether the property sold in the year 1994 pertains only to the petition mentioned property or not is not easy for consideration in the revision proceedings. When the lower Appellate Court was observing that the landlady's husband Gurdial Singh had admitted that the disputed property had been leased out to Partap Singh in the year 1945 and therefore, there could not have been any lease in support of very same property in favour of the defendant, the contention now is that Gurdial Singh was referring to some other property which was not in the petition. When the lower Appellate Court has held that lease deed has not been proved and that the property was in the hands of Partap Singh under a lease and that there could not have been, therefore, a lease in favour of the person shown as a tenant, I do not have enough materials to set aside the finding of the lower Appellate Court that the lease was not established. 5. A situation has come where proper adjudication in a summary proceeding under Rent Control Act is not possible and I would only observe that the case has been unnecessarily held on without adjudication for nearly three decades. The petitioners themselves have a part of the blame to share that they allowed for the petition to be dismissed and came with application for restoration after six years. At this stage, it is not possible for me to reverse the finding on the question of whether the lease was true or not and whether the sale deed relied on by the respondents as having been effected relates to the subject matter or not. The best course shall be to consign the landlord whoever is the owner to file a suit for recovery of possession of the basis of title, if so advised and Civil Court will decide the issue of title and grant the appropriate reliefs. In such a civil suit, it shall be impermissible for the respondent to deny the maintainability of civil suit. 6. With this liberty, the revision petition is dismissed.