The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing bonafide requirement for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act and highlights the significance of evidence and witness testimony in such cases.

( 1 ) CM (M) 616/2005 seeks to challenge the order dated 19. 07. 2004 of the additional Rent Controller in Suit No. E- 119/03/01 whereby the Additional Rent Controller has decreed the suit under section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) as also under Section 14 (1) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, in respect of property No. P-37, NDSE ? II, New delhi.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case as noted by the Additional Rent Controller, delhi are as follows:-"the petitions no. 119/03 and 120/03 moved by the petitioners against the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement U/s 14 (1) (e) red with Section 25-B and U/s 14 (1) (h) of DRC Act. The evidence led by the petitioners and responents are the same and both cases have been consolidated by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 30. 1. 03. As per the petitioner first floor of property no. P-37 n. D. S. E.-II, New Delhi was let out to the respondent on 1. 6. 76 at a monthly rent of Rs. 700/- for residential purposes only as shown in red colour in site plan. The tenancy was created through an oral agreement. The tenancy premises are required bonafidely by the petitioners to be used as residence for himself and his family members dependent upon him. As per the petitioners they have no other reasonably suitble residential accommodation in Delhi. Two sisters of petitioner no. 1 are married and settled in Delhi and they also visit and stay with the petitioners. The third sister of the petitioner no. 1 is also married nd settled in U. S. A. She also visits and stays with the petitioners. The petitioners are in possession of ground floor comprises only one bedroom, one drawing/dining room, kitchen and bathroom. The family of the petitioner comprises himself, his wife, one son, one daughter and petitioner no. 2 (who has expired during trial ). It is further alleged that the respondent has acquired vacant possession of other residential house bearing no. 3611, Sector D, Pocket-3, vasant Kunj, New Delhi for his residence. He has been corresponding with the dda at the said address. Respondent has also been allotted on 5. 5. 93, the MIC flat bearing no. 159-D, III Florr, Siddhartha Extension, New Delhi by the DDA and has taken the possession of the same. The respondent had filed a Civil Writ petition bearing no. 5475/93 challenging the price of the flat and the said writ petition had been decided in favour of the respondent. Hence the respondent had also rendered himself liable for eviction U/s 14 (1) (h) of DRC Act. In written statement the respondent has contested the claim of the petitioner stated there in that the petition is bad for mis-joinder of petitioners. As per allegations made in the original petition, petitioner no. 1 has alleged himself to be the owner/landlord of the property in dispute. Although the peritioner no. 2 has been added as a party but there are no allegations in the petition as to in what capacity the petitioner no. 2 has been impleaded as a party to the present proceedings. On 29. 1. 96 the counsel for petitioner made a statement adopting the earlier petition on behalf of the petitioner no. 2. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent and petitioner no. 1 has no locus-standi to file the present petition for eviction against the respondent. It is alleged that premises in question were let out to the respondent for residential cum commercial purposes by Smt. Premlata Dey and it has been used for residential cum commercial purposes from the inception of the tenancy. The respondent is a contractor by profession and he has been carrying on his business under the name and style of M/s Gupta Brothers from the premises in dispute. The respondent was registered as a Contractor with different government departments from the address of the premises in dispute. He has also been maintaining accounts in the name of M/s Gupta Brothers at the address of the premises in dispute. The respondent had been paying the rent