The central legal point established in the judgment is that a co-owner is entitled to maintain an eviction petition, and the requirement for additional accommodation does not necessarily warrant granting leave to defend.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This Rent Control Revision Petition under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 impugns the order dated 16th November, 2016 of the Additional Rent Controller of dismissal of application filed by the petitioner/tenant for leave to defend the petition for eviction filed by the respondent/landlord for eviction of the petitioner/tenant from Shop No. 1492 on ground floor forming part of property no. 1483-1492, Ward No. XIV, Gali Chuleh Wali, Sadar Nala Road, Pan Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 and consequently passing an order of eviction of the petitioner/tenant.

2. This petition was entertained and notice thereof issued to the respondent. Vide subsequent, also ex-parte order dated 29th May, 2017, operation of the impugned order was stayed.

3. The counsel for the respondent/landlord appears.

4. The counsel for the petitioner/tenant has been heard at length.

5. The learned Additional Rent Controller in a lucid and well reasoned order has held (i) that there is no merit in the denial by the petitioner/tenant in the application for leave to defend of being in possession of the shop in question owing to having a lien thereon under a building contract, because of admission of the petitioner of being a tenant under the respondent/landlord in an affidavit filed in another litigation and that owing to the said affidavit filed by the petitioner/tenant he was estopped from denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the respondent/landlord; (ii) that there is no merit in the plea of the petitioner/tenant in the application for leave to defend of the respondent/ landlord being not entitled to maintain the petition for eviction for the reason of being a co-owner thereof and for the reason of non-impleadment of his brother alleged to be the other co-owner as party to the eviction proceedings because the respondent/landlord as a co-owner was entitled to maintain a petition for eviction especially in view of admission by the petitioner/tenant of the relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent/landlord; (iii) that though the property no. 1483-1492, Ward No. XIV, Gali Chuleh Wali, Sadar Nala Road, Pan Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi in a portion whereof the petitioner is a tenant comprises of a number of other shops as well (22 according to the respondent/landlord and 26 according to the petitioner/tenant) but the respondent/landlord had sufficiently explained in the petition for eviction as to which shop or which portion is being used by which other tenant or a family member of the respondent/landlord; the petitioner/tenant on the other hand had made vague averments, without filing any site plan, to contradict the site plan filed by the respondent/landlord; (iv) that similarly there is no merit in the plea of the petitioner/tenant in the application for leave to defend of the three sons out of the ten sons of the respondent/landlord on the ground of whose requirement the petition for eviction was filed being gainfully employed elsewhere as the petitioner/tenant had failed to state as to what business or profession or vocation the said three sons of the respondent/ landlord were carrying or from where were they carrying on commercial activities; (v) that though according to the respondent/landlord the aforesaid three sons were residing with him; according to the petitioner/tenant they were residing separately; even if it was to be held that the said three sons of the respondent/landlord were residing separately, in the absence of any alternative suitable space pleaded for them to carry on their commercial activities, the respondent/landlord could always seek eviction of the petitioner/tenant for the need of his sons who were dependent upon him for accommodation; moreover the petitioner/tenant had not stated from where were the said three sons carrying on their profession or business or what profession or business; (vi) that vague averments without any substance could not form