( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Section 25b (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, by the tenants is directed against the eviction order dated 10-9-1984 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

( 2 ) THE landlords had sought eviction on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. In paragraph 18 (a) of the petition it was alleged :-

"1. The petitioner No. I is the owner and landlord and petitioner No. 2 has been held to be landlord of the premises in question. The premises in the occupation of the respondents are bonafidely required by the petitioner No. I for use as a residence for himself, his wife Smt. Rachna Jain and his daughter who are dependent on him. 2. He has no other accommodation (residential/non-residential) in Delhi or outside Delhi, muchless reasonable suitable accommodation. 3. At present, petitioner No. I and his family are living in one room and a small store-cum-kitchen provided by Shri Areh Dass Jain who is also not having sufficient accommodation. 4. Besides, the predecessors of petitioners and respondents 9 to 11 are/have been old residents of Delhi and as such they have very wide social connections in Delhi and outside Delhi. Friends and relatives from outstation too often visit and stay with them. 5. The petitioner is B. Corn. and LL. B. and a practising advocate and has been a regular assessee with Income Tax Department Delhi. 6. The petitioner No. I desires and intends to live in his own house in question peacefully with his wife and daughter. "inparagraph 19 of the petition it was alleged that A. Dass and Sons was constituted by the petitioners and respondents 9, 10 and 11. A partition of immoveable properties of A. Dass and Sons, Hindu Undivided Family has taken place by virtue of decree in partition suit No. 682 of 1976. Final decree in that case was passed by this Court on 15-12-1976. By virtue of the said decree the premises which are subject matter of the present eviction petition came to the exclusive share of petitioner No. 1. To avoid objections the other members of A. Dass and Sons have also been impleaded as parties in this petition.

( 3 ) THE petition was contested on various grounds. It was pleaded that the decree of partition, if any, was a collusive decree and had been obtained only in order to create an additional ground for eviction of the tenants. It was further pleaded that the accommodation in possession of A. Dass and Sons was more than sufficient inasmuch as they had six main rooms besides three other rooms. It was further pleaded that besides the property in question the family of the landlords had various other properties which were mentioned in the written statement. It was further pleaded that the landlords had filed two earlier petitions, one on the ground of substantial damage and the other on the ground of bona fide requirement and that the said two petitions were decided against the landlords. The partition was effected only in order to create a further ground for seeking eviction of the tenants and as such the same was malafide and not binding on the tenants.

( 4 ) ON consideration of the oral evidence as also the partition decree the Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that it was not open to the tenants to challange the partition decree which had been passed by this Court. Consequently it was held that the accommodation in occupation of respondent No. 1 was not sufficient and in any case he was not residing there as a matter of right. Inview of these findings the eviction order was passed.

( 5 ) THE petitioners challanged the eviction order by way of revision petition in this Court. The said revision petition was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Dissatisfied the petitioners filed a petition for Special Leave to Appeal in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while deciding the appeal observed, "the provision contained in Section 14 (1) (e) is meant to subserve a public interest and to strike a jus