The court's decision emphasized the importance of proving tenancy status, non-residency, and possession of alternative accommodation in eviction cases under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 20th October, 2012 passed by the District Judge-cum-A.S.J.-Incharge (West)/ARCT, Delhi, whereby the appeal under Sections 14(1)(d) & (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and upheld the order passed by the learned trial court directing the eviction of the petitioners from premises bearing No.AD-40, Tagore Garden, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “tenanted premises”).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are the owner and landlord of the tenanted premises. As per averments made in the eviction petition that one Sita Ram, son of Sh.Shankar Dass was inducted as tenant by the respondents in the aforesaid premises in the year 1975 at monthly rent of Rs.530/- excluding electricity and water charges. The said rent was always paid by Mr.Sita Ram and rent receipts were issued by the respondents in the name of Mr.Sita Ram from time to time for monthly rent paid by him which was also acknowledged by him.

3. From 1st January, 1992 Mr.Sita Ram had not paid the rent with respect to the tenanted premises till the date of filing of the eviction petition by the respondents against him under Section 14(1) (a), (d) & (h) of the Act. His two brothers, namely, Shyam Lal and Vishwa Nath filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment as respondents in the eviction petition claiming themselves to be the tenants of the respondents. It is a matter of fact that the respondents always denied the relationship of landlord and tenant also claimed by Shyam Lal and Vishwa Nath being joint tenancy. It was stated by the respondent No.1 that they neither ever lived in the tenanted premises nor ever made any objection or claim. However, the learned trial court considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in order to expedite the eviction proceedings passed an order of impleadment of Shyam Lal and Vishwa Nath as respondents No.2 and 3 respectively, without prejudice to rights and contentions of the parties despite of the fact that the case of the landlord from the day one contested they were not the tenants in the tenanted premises.

4. In 1994, the respondents served a legal demand notice for arrears of rent with effect from 1st January, 1992 but Sita Ram/tenant had neither paid nor tendered any rent to the respondent. Thus, the eviction order be passed against the tenant under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. With regard to eviction sought under Section 14(1)(d) is concerned, the case of the respondents was that as tenant had not been living in the tenanted premises for the last more than six months as he had been living in the property No.T-2449, Subhash Nagar, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The tenanted premises was lying locked and was not being used by the tenant for residential purposes for himself and his family members. The respondents were entitled for eviction against the tenant i.e. Sita Ram under the provisions of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.

5. In the eviction petition it was further the case of the respondent that from the very inception itself of the tenancy, the tenant acquired another vacant and suitable accommodation other than the tenanted premises for his residential purpose and he had been living in the said premises and thus, was also liable to be evicted under the provision of Section 14(1)(h) of the Act.

6. After receipt of the notice, Sita Ram and his brothers i.e. Shyam Lal and Vishwa Nath filed separate written statements taking preliminary objection about the maintainability of the eviction petition.

7. On merit, it was alleged by Sita Ram/tenant that his two brothers Shyam Lal and Vishwa Nath were the joint tenants in the tenanted premises and the same was taken on rent by them with effect from 18th March, 1975. It was also stated that Shyam Lal, who claimed himself as a joint tenant that he