The judgment establishes that the bona fide requirement for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act remains valid even after the death of the landlord, especially when considering the needs of the landlord's family members.

M.L. Mehta, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 25(B)(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the ‘Act’) is filed by the petitioners/tenants assailing the order of their eviction dated 11.3.2010 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller (South).

2. The petitioners are the tenants in respect of the ground floor of the property bearing No. 32, Link Road, Lajpat Nagar III since 1969. Their eviction was sought by the erstwhile owner Sh. Sidheshwar Dayal (since deceased) under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Act on the ground of bona fide requirement. The landlord’s case was that he is an old person, aged about 69 years and was suffering from acute form of Asthama and due to his precarious medical condition, it was not possible for him to stay on the first and second floor of the premises. It was also his case that his wife Smt. Chandni Dayal is also an old patient of Arthritis in her knees and she finds it difficult to climb the stairs. Further, it was also his case that his younger brother Kushal Dayal, who is residing with him, is also a patient of Schizophrenia, which is getting worse for the last few years. It was also averred in the eviction petition that his relatives and guests from Delhi as also his widowed sister and her family, frequently visit and stay with him. It was further averred that the present accommodation on the first and second floor of the premises, was not only insufficient, but was not suitable and thus, he bona-fidely required the ground floor’ tenanted premises. The petitioners filed leave to defend application, which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order by the Addl. Rent Controller (ARC) and consequently, eviction order was passed, which has been assailed by the petitioners by way of present petition.

3. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that they had raised various triable issues. It is submitted that the accommodation on the first and second floor available with the landlord comprised of seven rooms and that was sufficient and suitable for the respondent-landlord and his wife, brother and son. It was also their case that the pleas regarding the wife and brother of the respondent suffering from Arthritis and Schizophrenia respectively, was also a disputed fact, which could only be adjudicated after the trial. It was their plea that they are also aged 77 and 72 years and suffering from various diseases, and their eviction would cause them immense hardship as they do not have any place to reside. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the learned ARC erred in recording that there was no triable issue raised by the petitioners. It was also submitted that in any case, now since the landlord, Sidheshwar Dayal has expired, and his brother has also left, the bonafide need of the suit premises, if any, stands extinguished. The learned counsel strongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Seshambal (dead) Through LRs Vs. M/s Chelur Corporation, Chelur Building & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 1521 to contend that on account of the subsequent development of death of the landlord, Sidheshwar Dayal, for whom the tenanted premises was required on account of his physical condition, the need of the tenanted premises no longer survived.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the LRs of the deceased respondent, Sidheshwar Dayal made two-fold submissions; one, that the rights and obligations of the parties get crystalise on the date of the filing of the petition, and any subsequent development would be irrelevant to the maintainability or the continuance of the proceedings after the death of the original landlord. The alternative, second submission of learned counsel is that in any case, even after the death of Sidheshwar Dayal, the tenanted premises was required for the residence of his wife, Chandni Dayal and his son, as also his brother, Kushal Dayal and for his widowed si