The imperfectness of the landlord's title cannot prevent an eviction petition, and a tenant can only challenge the landlord's title after vacating the premises.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 11th January 1993 whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller allowed an eviction petition against the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord (respondent herein).

.2. The eviction petition was filed by two persons namely Smt. Uganti Devi and Smt. Sheela Devi. The petitioner made both of them as respondents. During the pendency of the petition, one of the respondent Smt. Uganti Devi, respondent No.2 died on 25th February 1994. The petitioner made no attempt to bring on record the legal representative of deceased respondent No.2 and the petition was dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court restored this revision petition, however, an issue whether the Civil Revision as a whole would abate on death of Smt. Uganti Devi for not bringing her Lrs on record was left open by the Hon”ble Supreme Court while allowing the SLP of the petitioner. I consider that it would be appropriate to decide this petition on merits.

3. The two landladies had filed an eviction petition contending therein that they were the owners of the premises. Smt. Uganti Devi, the co-owner and her dependent family members had no other reasonable and suitable residential accommodation. Her family included herself, her husband; her unmarried daughter aged about 18 years, 3 unmarried sons, and one married son and his wife and mother-in-law who were living along with her. She along with her family members was staying with her brother in law Shri Narayan in one room divided into three portions with the help of wooden partitions in the factory premises situated at 8744, Gali No.14B, Karol Bagh and her brother in law and his wife were per force also residing in one room partitioned with the help of wooden ply in the same manner and he required the premises for his own use and had asked the petitioner No.1 and her family members to vacate the premises. They had no other suitable residential accommodation except the premises in question. She also contended that besides her family members, she had five brothers-in-law and daughters-in- law apart from brothers and sisters and all of them used to visit her on and off and she required guest rooms for the purpose. There was a persistent demand from her brother-in-law to vacate the premises. Hence, the eviction petition.

.4. The tenant (petitioner herein) in leave to contest took the stand that the petitioner was neither the owner nor the landlord of the premises under his tenancy. It was denied that the petitioners had purchased the property from late Shri Ram on 6.6.1985 as alleged. It was further alleged that Shri Ram was not the owner of the premises and it was only HUF who was the owner of the premises. The relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. It was also submitted that no letter was sent by Late Shri Ram to tenant authorizing the landlady to receive the rent. The property still remained in the name of the previous owner/landlord in the property tax record and, therefore, the landladies were not the owner of the premises. The other defence taken was that premises was let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes. The bonafide requirement of the landlady was also denied and it was stated that the landlady and her family were having lot of accommodation in property bearing No.5490-92, Pahar Ganj consisting of more than 10 rooms. The property bearing No.8749, Karol Bagh, was also in possession of the

.landladies which consisting of number of rooms. It was submitted that the rent of the premises was only Rs.15 and the landladies had an intention to sell the property and they had already entered into an agreement to sell qua the property subject to the condition that they would get the premises vacated from the petitioner and hence the eviction petition filed by the landladies was a mala fide one. The extent of the family of the landlady was also denied. It was submitted that the landlady claimed that sh