The main legal point established is that a genuine and justified need for accommodation, especially in the case of a large family with limited space, can influence the court's decision in eviction cases.

P.K. Bhasin, J.

1. This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(“the Rent Act” in short) was filed by one Smt. Krishna Devi, who died during the pendency of this petition and her legal heirs were brought on record, and one of her sons Shri Sat Narain against the order dated 28.07.1998 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller(in short ‘the Controller’) dismissing their eviction petition filed against the respondent herein under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act in respect of a part of house No. 1/40, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as “the tenanted premises”).

2. In the eviction petition it had been claimed that the deceased petitioner Smt. Krishna Devi was the owner of property No. 1/40, Punjabi Bagh and two room set on the first floor of this house was let out to the respondent-tenant in the year 1980 by her through her son, petitioner No. 2 who had all along been dealing with the respondent as the landlord. The eviction of the respondent was sought on the ground that the tenanted premises in his occupation were required bona fide for the residence of the deceased petitioner and her other family members dependent upon her. The family of the deceased petitioner was of twenty three members including herself, her husband, and her three sons who were dependent on her for residence and her grandchildren while the accommodation available with her in the house No. 1/40 which was the only property owned by her, was of five rooms only. One of her sons was living separately in a rented house because of paucity of accommodation in the house in question she wanted him also to stay with other family members together. Petitioner No. 2 was also living separately but he was not dependent upon her.

3. The respondent-tenant had contested the eviction petition after obtaining necessary permission from the Controller as provided under Section 25-B(4 & 5) of the Rent Act. In his written statement he had taken the plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the deceased petitioner Smt. Krishna Devi and that the tenanted premises had actually been let out to him by her son Sat Narain, petitioner No. 2 and since his said landlord was not claiming that he required the tenanted premises for his residence the eviction petition was not maintainable. The respondent had further pleaded that under the family partition in respect of house in question the portion under his tenancy tenanted it was petitioner No. 2 who had become its owner but and the eviction petition was filed collusively by the mother and son together in order to evict the respondent by pressing into service the requirement of the mother showing her to be the owner.

4. The learned Controller after examining the evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the eviction petition vide impugned order. The relevant portions from that order where the contentions of the parties were discussed and findings were given are re-produced below:-

“……………….The petitioner No. 1 has submitted that the premises in the suit were now required for residence of herself and their family members dependent upon her. She has stated that her family consisted of herself, her husband, her sons and their families. It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 has only one house namely 1/40 Punjabi Bagh where she had accommodation consisting of 2 rooms, store, kitchen, bath room on the ground floor. Similar accommodation on the first floor and barsati on the second floor. The first floor portion was with the respondent. the petitioners have stated that the petitioner No. 2 had his own house at CP-211 Pitampura New Delhi and was not dependent upon the petitioner for accommodation. However, she claims that her family consisted of her husband, one son having his wife and 3 grown up children aged about 21, 18 and 14 years, another son having his wife and 4 children aged 17, 15, 12 and 11 years, the third son having his wife and 3 children aged