' The respondents sought the petitioner's eviction from the commercial premises inter alia on the ground of default. In the title of the petition. Responden.Ts Nos. 3 and 4 were shown as of unsound mind. Mst. Shamim Begum respondent No.1 herein who is their mother in the capacity of guardian ad litem filed the application on their behalf. In the written statement, the petitioner raised the objection that they were not lunatic; insisted upon their medical examination and an enquiry on the question of their insanity. The learned Rent Controller procured the presence of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 before him and after satisfying himself as to their lunacy turned down the petitioner's objection and appointed respondent No.2 as their guardian ad litem.
2 The order dated 9-7-1986 passed by the learned Rent Controller in this respect has been brought under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that it was incumbent on the Rent Controller to hold an enquiry and then give a. Finding regarding their lunacy.
3. It is obvious that the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to adjudicate upon the controversy is not disputed even by the petitioner. Even otherwise, it was well within the competence of the Rent Controller to regulate the proceedings before him. As already maintained respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were produced before the Rent Controller who came to the conclusion that they being insane had to be represented by their mother who obviously had no interest adverse to that of the respondents. It seems to me that the objection raised by the petitioner was not in good faith and was aimed merely prolonging the proceedings. There is no illegality muchless a jurisdictional defect in the impugned order to call for its removal through judicial review. Dism:issed in limine.