Sultan Singh, J.
(1) This appeal by the tenant challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 26-11-1981 holding that the respondents-landlords have filed the eviction application under section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that it should be tried under section 25-B of the Act.
(2) Briefly the facts are that respondents I to 3 filed an application for eviction of the appellent and respondent No 4 under sections 14(l)(e) of the Act. In. the application the landlords also pleaded that respondent No. 4 (in this appeal) was made a party to avoid any objection at a later stage and to get the matter finally decided as she was in occupation of a portion of the suit premises which was lying locked, and that there was parting with possession by that tenant-appellant in her favor. The Controller by order dated 3-10-1981 held that the landlord had taken the ground of sub-letting within the meaning of section It (1) (b) of the Act and so application for eviction was not to be tried under section 25-B of the Act but only as an ordinary eviction application. On appael by the landlords the Tribunal held that the ground of sub-letting was not taken specifically and that it was an application for eviction under section 14(l)(e) of the Act only The Tribuual thereforee, directed the application to be tried ' under section 25-B of the Act. The tenant has filed this second appeal. He submits that the eviction application is not under section 14(l)(b) of the Act, but Smt. Kaushal Kumari Jain respondant No. 4 being a party to the application for eviction and she being not a tenant, the application cannot be tried under section 25-B of the Act.
(3) The admitted facts are that respondents I to 3 are landlords and the appellant is the tenant. Respodent No. 4 Kaushal Kumari Jain is alleged to be a sub-tenant. . The allegations contained in the eviction application do not amount to claiming, and .eviction against the appellant and respondent No. 4 on the ground-of sub-letting but it amounts to the claim for eviction only on the ground mentioned in section 14( I )(e) of the Act. The question however is whether in a proceeding under section 14(e) of the Act an order of eviction can be passed against a person who is not a tenant .under the landlord. From the pleadings is clear that respondent No. 4 Smt. Kaushal Kumari Jain is not a tenant. Section 25-B(4) of the Act needs as under:
'(4)The tenant on whom the summons is duly served (whether in in JtheOrdinaTy way or by registered post) in the form specified in the form specified in the prayer for eviction from the premises unless the files an affidavit staling the grounds on the which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided, and in default of his 'appearance, in .pursuance of the summons of his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the Application for. eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant. and. the applicant shall be entitled an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid.'
(4) (ACCORDING to this section the tenant has to obtain leave to contest the eviction application and if he falls to do so or if he applies and his application for leave to defand is dismissed, the statements made by the landlords in the application for eviction are deemed to be admitted by the tenants. He provision has been brought to my notice that in case of failure to apply for leave to. defend of dismissal of application for leave to defend the allegations in the eviction application against a person who is not a tenant, can be deemed to be corrector admitted by him. In other words if a person who is not a.tenant is made party to eviction proceedings .under section 14(l)(e) of the Act, the eviction application cannot be .tried .under section 25-B of the Act as there is no provision to grant an eviction order . under section' 14(l)(e) read with section 25-B of the Act in favor of a landlord against a person who is not a tenant. It is for this reason that if a landlord desires to make the eviction order binding on any person other than the tenant he has to prove that the person who is not his tenant was bound by the eviction order. In the present case respondent No. 4 Smt. Kaushal Kumari Jain is such a person, she is alleged to be a sub-tenant. Assuming that the landlords are entitled to aneviction under section 14(l)(c) of the Act against the appellent-tenant, they have still to prove that such an order of eviction would be binding upon respondent No. 4 Smt. Kaushal Kumari Jain. It is not known what would be the defense of Smt. Kaushal Kumari Jain. She being not a tenant is not entitled to apply for leave to defend. If a person, who is not a tenant, is made a party to an eviction case in proceeding under section 14(1)(c) of the Act, opportunity had to be given to such a person to defend himself without any application being made by him for leave to defend.
(5) Under the circumstances, I am ofthe view that the present eviction aipplication filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 cannot be tried under section 25-B of the Act against respondent No. 4 Smt. Kaushal Kumari Jain who is admittedly not a tenant. The eviction application must thereforee, betried as in. ordinary one and not under section 25-B of the Act. The appeal is thereforee, accepted setting aside the order of the Tribunal. The parties arc directed to appear before the Additional Rent Controller on 27th May, 1982. He would treat the eviction application to be tried in the ordinary manner under section 37 of the Act and not under section 25-B of the Act. The learned counsel for the respondents states that it is an application under section 14(1)(e) ofthe Act and as a third person is in occupation of the premises, the Controller may be directed to expedited the disposal of the eviction case. The Controller may exparty the disposal of the aviction application, preferably within a period of one year. No order as to costs.