Devinder Gupta, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition preferred TO under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act) tenant has challenged an order passed on 6. 1. 1993 by Shri M. K. Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi allowing the petition for eviction preferred TO by the respondent Kalawati Devi under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 B of the Act thereby ordering petitioner s eviction from a residential premises.

( 2 ) ON 22. 7. 1987 respondents filed a petition seeking petitioner s eviction from the first floor of the premises bearing No. 95, Banarsi Dass Estate, Timarpur, Delhi comprising of three rooms, a kitchen, verandah, bath and latrine. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 was the owner landlady. Premises had been let out for residential purpose and the same were required bonafide by her and her family s requirement. She was not having any other residential accommodation available to her within Delhi or anywhere else in India. Details were given by her in para 19 of the nature and extent of requirement. She joined Virender Kumar, respondent No. 2, along with her in filing the petition, alleging that though Virender Kumar had no independent right, title or interest to the premises but had been joined as such as per legal advice, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in order to avoid any belated or hyper technical objection at a later stage. She averred that she was issueless and Virender Kumar was her sister s son. Eversince his birth, Virender kumar had been looked after and brought up by her as her own son and had throughout resided with her. For diverse causes and reasons, formality of adoption never took place otherwise for all practical purposes Virender Kumar had always been treated and accepted not only by her but by all concerned to be her son. In this background she averred that her family comprises of herself, Virender Kumar, his wife and four children. She along with Virender Kumar and his family was residing in the ground floor where living accommodation available was only 3 rooms, store and a kitchen, which was highly insufficient and inadequate to meet the requirement of the family and, thus, she required at least double the accommodation of what was in her occupation. It was also alleged that Virender Kumar was having 1/3rd undivided share in 1/4th unspecified portion of the property bearing No. 7, Lancers Road, Timarpur, Delhi and on notional partition Virender Kumar would be found entitled only to two rooms, which would not at all be suitable and sufficient for accommodating her, Virender Kumar and his family and moreover she was not willing to shift from the building in question to those premises. In other words, she stated that she requirs additional accommodation in the same building in the ground floor at which she was residing.

( 3 ) THE tenant sought leave which was granted and she contested the claim of the respondents by filing her written statement. It was not disputed that respondent Kalawati Devi was the owner landlady. An objection was taken that the petition for eviction was bad for non-joinder of parties. The premises in question had jointly been let out to her and her two sons Rajan and Anil Bali, who were also co-tenants with her. Premises had been let out for residential cum commercial purposes and were being used as such right from inception of tenancy. The petition for eviction was also bad for mis-joinder of Virender Kumar who had no right, title or interest in the premises in question. Respondent s version that Virender Kumar was being treated as a son was disputed. It was stated that the requirement of Virender Kumar cannot be considered to be the respondent s requirement and moreover Virender Kumar was having separate property in Delhi. In addition it was stated that the petition was highly malafide inasmuch as the sole intention of the respondent landlady was to get the premises vacated and let out the same on higher pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document