JUDGMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.:— This appeal by special leave is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 30th of Jan. 1986. The order in question was passed by the High Court in second appeal. In order to appreciate the controversy in this appeal, it is necessry to refer to certain facts. In 1947 three rooms and a courtyard in Premises Nos. 2216-2222, Gali Inder Chammar Teliwara, Delhi as an Evacuee Property was given on tenancy to the appellant by the Custodian of the Evacuee property. In 1956, the entire property was jointly purchased by the father of the respondent and Smt. Sham Kaur from the Custodian of the Evacuee property. Smt. Sham Kaur had paid 50 per cent of the consideration money, i.e., Rs. 25,700/- towards the sale amount. It was a joint purchase. Smt. Sham Kaur died in 1975 and her legal heirs became the co-landlords of the disputed premises. In June, 1975 the father of the respondents had filed an Eviction Petition against the appellant on the ground that the premises in question was required bona fide by the landlord under S. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter called the said Act. Legal heirs of Smt. Sham Kaur were, however, not impleaded as parties. On 28th of Oct. 1976 the First Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dismissed the suit for eviction. Several grounds had been taken in defence by the appellant herein before the First Additional Rent Controller. It was contended, inter alia, that the respondent had no locus standi to file petition and that the respondent was not the sole owner of the premises in occupation of the appellant. It was further contended that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in view of the aforesaid contention. Other owners had not been joined as parties and as such the suit was not maintainable, it was submitted. It was further urged that the permission granted by the Slum Authority was invalid. Service of a proper notice dated 12th July, 1972 was denied. The respondent had filed reply to the opposition by the appellant. The First Additional Rent Controller held that there was proper service of the notice. But the validity of the notice was challenged on the ground that the premises were previously evacuee property. A certificate of sale had been issued in favour of one Sunder Singh and the respondent. The respondent had admitted that the sale certificate was issued in the joint name of Smt. Sham Kaur, widow of Sunder Singh and the respondent. It was stated that the premises were let out to the appellant by the Custodian of the Evacuee Property and, he had not entered into any separate agreement of lease and the terms of the lease were never settled in the presence of the respondent. In view of this admission it was held that Smt. Sham Kaur and the appellant both became owners of the property in question and both had became landlords of the premises in suit. It was argued that the other co-owner ceased to be landlord of the premises because rent was continuously paid to the respondent. The First Additional Rent Controller held against the respondent in respect of this contention. He was of the opinion that one of the co-landlords could receive payment on behalf of the other. Receipt of rent by one landlord would not by itself make him the exclusive owner when the premises were in fact owned by more than one owner. The First Additional Rent Controller held that in the premises the respondent alone could not terminate the tenancy of the appellant. The First Additional Rent Controller distinguished the decision of this Court in Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagan Nath, (1976) 4 SCC 184. The First Additional Rent Controller held that one co-owner could not terminate the tenancy when the property was owned by joint owners. The First Additional Rent Controller also that the landlord being respondent herein was not able to prove that there was no reasoanably suitable accommodation with him. It was also held that his bona fide