Sunanda Bhandare, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 31/8/1984 whereby the eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not been able to prove that he bonafide required the premises in question and that he had no other reasonable or suitable accommodation available to him.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The property bearing No. 733, Bara Tooti, Sadar Bazar, Delhi was purchased by S. Hari Singh, father of the petitioner in a public auction on 15/5/1959 from the Custodian of Evacuee Property for a sum of Rs. 23,100. 00. At that time the premises in dispute were given on rent to Dwarka Dass. Dwarka Dass died in the year 1977 leaving behind the respondents as his legal heirs. S. Hari Singh met with an accident and expired on 10th June 1979 leaving behind petitioner as one of the legal heirs besides Smt. . Ram Kali widow of late S. Hari Singh and other children. Thereafter, petition for eviction of the respondents was filed in the year 1980 by the present petitioner on the ground of bonafide personal requirement.

( 3 ) APART from contesting the petition on merits, respondents raised a preliminary objection before the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi that the petition for eviction was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as all the legal heirs of S. Hari Singh were not parties to the petition either as petitioners or respondents. The Additional Rent. Controller, Delhi while rejecting the petition for eviction also rejected the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and held that though the petitioner was not the sole owner since he was the co-owner he could file the petition for eviction.

( 4 ) THE petitioner was not represented at the time of the hearing of the case.

( 5 ) AT the hearing of the case, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the learned Additional Rent Controller had wrongly decided the preliminary objection and since the petition for eviction was dismissed he could not challenge the order by filing a revision petition or cross appeal but can challenge the finding on the preliminary objection in this Court in these very proceedings. It was contended that the learned Additional Rent Controller had wrongly accepted the plaint because admittedly the petitioner was only a co-owner and there were other owners who were not parties to the eviction petition. It was submitted that a co-owner could file a suit for eviction if he was the landlord. The pleadings and evidence in the case didnot show that the respondents at any time accepted the petitioner as their sole landlord. Learned counsel referred to the evidence of the petitioner wherein it was admitted by the petitioner that after 1977 the respondents have not paid any rent to the petitioner and no authority or power of attorney was given by any of the other co-owners to him to file the petition for eviction. Learned counsel referred to Sri Ram Pasricka v. Jagan Nath etc. , 1976 RLR 607 and Hira Nand G. Massand v. R. R. Gulrajani, 1985 RCJ 666 in support of his contention that if a co-owner has to sue for eviction he has to prove that he is the landlord.

( 6 ) I find substantial force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. It is well-settled that even if all the co-owners are not parties to the eviction petition if a co-owner proves that he is the sole landlord the suit for eviction by a co-owner would be maintainable even if the other co-owners are not parties to the petition. However, the burden of proof to prove that the co-owner is also the landlord is on the person who asserts that he is the landlord. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents accepted the petitioner as their landlord. From the pleadings of the parties in the present case, it appears that it is an admitted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document