Co-owners have the right to seek eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, and unauthorized possession cannot be used as a defense in eviction proceedings.

1. The revision petition at hand has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 31.03.2012 passed by the Additional Rent Controller on the file of eviction case (E-185/2011) thereby dismissing the application of the petitioner (tenant/respondent before the Rent Controller) seeking leave to defend the proceedings arising out of the petition presented by the respondent (landlord/petitioner before the Rent Controller) on the ground of bona-fide need under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and in the consequence granting an order of eviction in respect of demised premises described as one shop admeasuring 26.5” x 8.25” bearing shop no. 3926 & 3919/28, now known as No. 3926 forming part of property Nos. 3926, 3919/28, 3924/1 & staircase no. 3924, Abdullah Building, Roshnara Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition (hereinafter referred to as “the suit premises”).

2. It is undisputed that the tenant/petitioner herein was inducted in the suit premises by the erstwhile owner Dhanno Devi. It is also undisputed that Dhanno Devi, the original landlady, whose title to the property cannot be challenged by the tenant, died in the year 2002. It is also undisputed that the landlord (the respondent herein) is her son who has placed on record a copy of the Will duly registered, left behind by Dhanno Devi thereby bequeathing her estate in favour of her legal heirs that include him (the respondent), the other legal heirs including Bimla Devi, the daughter of Dhanno Devi and sister of the respondent.

3. The petition seeking vacation of the subject premises under Section 14 (1) (e), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was filed on the grounds that the respondent is a diploma holder in Instruments Mechanics from ITI, Delhi, engaged in some private job, earning his livelihood by selling household goods as a hawker on footpaths and local weekly markets and that he requires a regular place for his business and therefore was in an urgent need of the suit premises.

4. The petitioner sought leave to contest primarily questioning the title of the respondent to prosecute such a case under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act referring in this context to the fact that the respondent is not the sole or exclusive owner of the property after the death of Dhanno Devi, also placing reliance on certain documents evidencing acceptance of rent by Bimla Devi. These contentions have been considered and rejected by the Rent Controller on the following reasons:-

“The maintainability of the present petition has been challenged denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and respondent has even disputed the ownership. Admitted position is that the suit property was let out to the present respondent by Smt. Dhanno Devi. There is no denial on behalf of the respondent that petitioner is not the son of late Smt. Dhanno Devi. Petitioner has claimed his title qua the suit property against the respondent on the basis of Will and respondent has challenged the Will and has alleged that since the petitioner is not the landlord, therefore, he can not maintain the petition on his own without impleading the other co-owners or without filing no objection from other legal heirs and in this regard he has placed reliance upon the judgment reported in 1987 (1) RCJ 85. I have perused the judgment. With due respect, the facts of the present case is different from the said case as in the present case petitioner has claimed his title qua the suit property on the basis of registered will in his favour and in the said case, landlord was not claiming any title on the basis of Will and it is settled law that any of the co-owner can maintain the eviction petition subject to rider that the other co-owner should not have any objection and till date no objection has been filed on behalf of the other co-owners and it is further settled law that the respondent being the tenant can not challenge th