1. Delay condoned.
2. Substitution allowed.
3. Leave granted.
4. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the landlords against the order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of the Rent Controller which had directed eviction of the original defendant-respondent. The High Court appears to have set aside the said order because the said tenant had been inducted in contravention of Clause 22(2) of the Rent Control Order, 1949. According to the High Court, the tenancy itself being void there was no question of directing eviction.
5. During the pendency of the special leave petition, the original respondent died. His heirs have been substituted and office report shows that the service is complete.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has drawn our attention to a judgment of this Court in the case of Nanakram v. Kundalrai, wherein it has been held that failure to give intimation as provided by Clause 22 aforesaid will not make the contract void. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not affected in any manner. We would have finally disposed of this appeal but we consider it proper that this question should be examined by the High Court after issuing notice to the heirs of the original respondent.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Now First Appeal No. 12 of 1974 which had been disposed of by the impugned order, shall be heard and disposed of in the light of the judgment aforesaid. We request the High Court to dispose of the said appeal as early as possible after service of notice on the substituted heirs. No costs.