The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'ownership' in bonafide necessity petitions and the requirement to prove landlord-tenant relationships and bonafide necessity under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J (Oral)

C.M. No.3801/2014 (exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RC. REV. No.386/2012 and C.M. Nos.3800/2014 (stay) & 13589/2012 (stay)

2. No doubt, this Court in routine receives various challenges to orders which are passed by the Additional Rent Controller, and number of them are frivolous, however, the present petition is a height of dishonesty and lack of bonafides of an unacceptable nature. This I am observing because the admitted fact is that the petitioner/tenant has not paid even nominal, the admitted rent @ Rs.60/- per month way back from the year 1979. Not only the nominal admitted rent is not paid, but, the facts discussed below will show that the petitioner/tenant is resorting to falsehood of denying the ownership of the respondent/landlord and who is the son of Sh. Vijay Narain although to Sh. Vijay Narain petitioner/tenant admits that he had paid the rent and hence Sh. Vijay Narain was the landlord of the petitioner. Therefore for around 35 years, petitioner is staying in the tenanted premises comprising of one room on the ground floor, without paying a single rupee as charges for use and occupation. Also, this eviction petition on the ground of bonafide necessity has been decreed after trial and it is not as if the eviction petition was decreed by refusing leave to defend. With the aforesaid introductory statement, let me turn to the facts of the present case.

3. This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) impugns the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 4.5.2012 by which the bonafide necessity eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act has been decreed. The respondent/landlord filed the eviction petition for bonafide necessity with respect to the tenanted premises of one room on the ground floor of the property bearing No.5166(part)/5167, 5167-A and 5168, Basant Road, Pahar Ganj, Delhi-110055. The entire property is constructed on a very small area of land of about 76 sq yds. The family of the respondent/landlord comprises of himself, his wife and his son of marriageable age. Besides these family members, the respondent/landlord has two married daughters and for whom a guest room is required as the married daughters regularly visit the respondent/landlord. When we compare the family members of the respondent to the accommodation which is available to the respondent, it is seen that the respondent/landlord has on the ground floor of the premises, besides the tenanted room, one shop which is being used by him as a general store (kiryana). On the first floor, there are two rooms plus a store room (less than 100 sq feet) alongwith kitchen, bathroom, WC and open space. There is one small barsati room and WC on the second floor. The respondent needs one bed room for himself, one bed room for his son, one bed room as guest room for his married daughters, one drawing room, one store room and one puja room i.e a total of four big rooms besides amenities of a store room, puja room, kitchen and WC, however, the respondent/landlord has only two rooms and one store room and hence there is an additional requirement of two big rooms and a puja room. At this stage itself I may note that the tin shed on the barsati/second floor cannot be used as a room and which aspect is discussed subsequently because the roof of the said room on the second floor is made of T-iron.

4. The petitioner/tenant contested the petition and stated that the respondent was not the owner of the suit premises. The bonafide need of the respondent for himself and his family members was denied including by stating that there existed two rooms plus one room and which third room is only a store room on the first floor and also allegedly that two rooms existed on the second floor. Also, one room was said to be available to the son of the respondent/landlord in a nearby premises bearing no