The heritability of a statutory tenancy and the bona fide requirement of premises by a landlord are questions of law and fact that must be considered when determining whether to grant leave to a tenant to contest an eviction application.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, a tenant, assails an order of the second Additional Rent Controller, Delhi declining permission, to contest the application of the owner/respondents for eviction on the ground that the premises was bona fide required by the owners for their residence in view of the alleged insufficiency of accommodation available to them for the purpose.

( 2 ) THE property in dispute is jointly owned by the three respondents and consists of a unit on the ground floor and on the first floor. Two of the joint owners respondents Nos. 1 and 2, reside in the first floor of the property in dispute, while the petitioner has been in occupation of the ground floor. The other joint owner, respondent No. 3, allegedly stays in a rented accommodation in Punjabi Bagh. The late husband of the petitioner was the original tenant, who, on his death, was survived by the petitioner, his widow, and a son, who has not been impleaded in the proceedings. Leave under sub-section (5) of Section 25b of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, the Act) was sought by the petitioner on a number of grounds, all of which were dispelled by the Second Additional Rent Controller, who has consequently ordered the eviction of the petitioner giving her six months time to vacate the premises. Of the various grounds on which leave was sought only two survive for consideration, namely, (a) the application for eviction was not maintainable without impleading the son of the original tenant, (b) the premises in dispute are not bona fide required by any of the owners, who have reasonably suitable accommodation for their requirement.

( 3 ) ON first of these two grounds the controversy between the parties before the Additional Controller has been as to whether the tenant died as a contractual or a statutory tenant. On the basis of the alleged notice of termination of tenancy and its reply on behalf of the tenant to counsel for the owners, which were produced on behalf of the owners, a finding was returned that the tenancy had been duly terminated before the death of the tenant and that the tenant on the date of his death was not a contractual tenant and had only statutory protection, which beinpersonal to him, died with him subject, of course, to the right of the widow, the petitioner, to statutory protection in terms of the provisions of Section 2 (l) (iii) of the Act, as amended by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act. 1976 (for short, the Amending Act) It was consequently held that in view of the fact that the tenant was survived by the widow, the petitioner, it was the petitioner alone who became the tenant by virtue of the amended definition of the expression "tenant" dispensing with the need to implead the son of the original tenant in the proceedings. It was, therefore, held that the application for eviction was maintainable in the absence of the son.

( 4 ) ON the second of the aforesaid two grounds it was a common case of the parties that two of the joint owners, respondents I and 2, were staying in the first floor of the premises in dispute while the third of them, respondent No. 3, was staying in a tenanted premises in Punjabi Bagh. The plea that the premises in the occupation of the owners was sufficient for their requirement was, however, turned down on an assessment of the relevant circumstances of the two sets of owners, the insufficiency of the present accommodation available to them and the suitability of the accommodation in Punjabi Bagh in the context of the assertion that respondent No. 3 was working in the Reserve Bank of India at Parliament Street and was, therefore, put to a considerable inconvenience in having to commute a long distance to attend to his official work. It was, therefore, held that one of the joint owners, respondent No. 3, bona fide required the premises for his residence as the rented accommodation available to him in Punjabi Bagh could not be said to he reasonable suitable for his requirement. The examin