The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a bonafide need for a substantial part of the tenanted premises is established, the eviction petition should be decreed, and the availability of alternative accommodation and ownership of a transport company are not valid reasons to deny the eviction petition.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral):--

RC. REV. No. 347/2014 and C.M. Nos. 17682/2014, 17684-86/2014

1. This rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) impugning the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 4.7.2014 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application of the present petitioner; and who was the respondent No. 6 in the eviction petition; and has decreed the bonafide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to the tenanted premises i.e the entire property No. 4082-87, Naya Bazar, Delhi-6 comprising of ground floor (comprising of four halls; one of the halls having been partitioned into seven portions), first floor (comprising of six rooms and two halls) and the second floor (comprising of seven rooms). The present petitioner claims to be a tenant in the portion which is marked in dark green colour in the site plan filed with the eviction petition and this portion is one room on the ground floor of the property. As per the case of the landlords (respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein) the petitioner was an illegal sub-tenant.

2(i) It is relevant, at this stage, to state that in the eviction petition a total of eight persons were arrayed as respondents with the present petitioner arrayed as respondent No. 6 in the eviction petition. Present petitioner is only an illegal subtenant who was inducted by the tenant/respondent No. 6 herein/respondent No. 1 in the eviction petition. As per the eviction petition, only the respondent No. 1 in the eviction petition was a tenant whereas respondent Nos. 2 to 8 to the eviction petition were pleaded to be illegal sub tenants. The tenant being the respondent No. 1 in the eviction petition filed his leave to defend application, and separate leave to defend applications were also filed by the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 in the eviction petition; though through the same counsel. Whereas respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in the eviction petition pleaded that they were independent tenants and not illegal sub tenants as was the case of the landlords, respondent No. 8 in the eviction petition claimed that he had become owner by adverse possession and that even his father was owner on account of his being in adverse possession of the portion presently with the respondent No. 8 in the eviction petition.

(ii) Alongwith the eviction petition, a site plan was filed by the landlords/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein showing possessions of different portions of the property by the different respondents in the eviction petition. In the site plan in separate colours the separate portions in possession of the different respondents in the eviction petition were depicted. The exact details with respect to possessions of different portions of the different respondents can be understood from para 20 of the eviction petition and which reads as under:--

“20. Relief claimed:

Under the above circumstances it is therefore respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order of eviction in favour of the petitioners and as against the respondent No. 1 and the persons, viz, the respondent Nos. 2 to 8, who are claiming through the respondent No. 1, directing them to vacate and handover to the petitioners the vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted portion in the building in question viz. property No. 4082-4087, Naya Bazar Delhi, more appropriately outlined in dark red colour in the annexed site plan as was let out to the respondent No. 1, including the portions with various sub-tenants, i.e. respondent Nos. 2 to 8, which are marked as ‘A’ on the ground floor and first floor of the building in question and shown in pink colour are in occupation of respondent No. 1; the portions marked ‘B’ on the ground floor, Mezzanine floor and the first floor of the building in question and shown in blue colour are in occupation with sub-tenant the respond