1. The petitioner has assailed an order dated 12th January, 2007 whereby an Eviction petition filed by the respondents under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act was allowed after contest and eviction order was passed in respect of the premises in his occupation.

2. The respondents filed two Eviction Petitions against the petitioner in respect of the premises in his occupation in property no. 621, Katra Asharfi, Chandni Chowk.

3. The Eviction Petition E-397/2006 was in respect of one room with store within the room with tin shed in front of room, bath, one store, Kolki in stairs, common use of open Verandah, WC, one kitchen on the second floor.

4. The other Eviction Petition was also in respect of one room with a tin shed in front of the room, common use of open Varendah, WC, bath and kitchen on the second floor in occupation of the petitioner.

5. Both the petitions together showed the total accommodation in possession of the petitioner was two rooms, tin shed before them, one store, bath/store, kolki in stairs and open Verandah, WC, Kitchen. Site plan of the accommodation in possession of petitioner was filed by the respondent/landlord (the petitioner hereinafter shall be referred as tenant and the respondent as landlady).

6. The landlady contended that she required the above tenanted premises for her own and familys bonafide necessities. Her family consisted of herself, her husband, one son studying in college and other daughter studying in standard 11. She had no other alternative, suitable, residential accommodation available to her. Presently, she along with her family was living in a rented accommodation in house no. 2680, Chooriwalan, Delhi-6 rented by her husband. The rented accommodation consisted of only one living room and two small store rooms inside the living room. One of the store rooms measuring 5x 4 had fallen down as the construction was old. The petitioner had put a cloth curtain so as to use it as a dressing-cum-store room. This rented accommodation was highly insufficient and uncomfortable for her and her family as the single room was being used as a drawing-cum-dining room in the day time and as a bed room in the night. Her family was living in great hardship in this rented accommodation as there was no study room for children and no bed room for her and her husband or for grown up son and daughter, both of whom needed separate bed room. A curtain was being used in the single room to divide it into two portions in the night so that family can sleep in some privacy. She had no guest room. There was no ventilator or window in the store room. The common latrine and bath room of the rented accommodation in her possession were situated on the ground floor. She pleaded that her necessity was grave and dire.

7. Leave to defend application moved by the tenant was allowed and thereafter trial took place.

8. In the WS, tenant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, the ownership of the landlady and denied the letting purpose being residential. He contended that the premises was let out for composite purpose namely residential-cum-commercial. A stand was taken that the premises was let out to Kishan Lal, the original tenant, who died in year 1975 and after his death all his legal heirs including petitioner became tenants-in-common and they were necessary parties in the petition but had not been joined, so the petition was liable to be dismissed. It was also avered by tenant that landlord had concealed the facts that Rakesh Kumar, the husband of petitioner no. 1, was the owner of property no. 565-566, Katra Asharfi, Chandni Chowk constructed on 65 sq. yds., comprising of ground floor, second floor and third floor. This property was purchased jointly by Rakesh Kumar, husband of landlady but the other co-owners had subsequently relinquished their rights in favour of Rakesh Kumar and he had become sole owner and landlady had got enough accommodation in the said property. Rakesh Kumar also own