The main legal point established in the judgment is that the co-owner's consent is not required for filing an eviction petition, and the tenant's objections regarding suitable alternative accommodations must be substantiated with reasonable evidence.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - Rc.Rev. 599/2018 & CM APPLN. 52211/2018, 52213/2018, 13763/2019, 14710/2019, 22274/2019, 29718/2019, 13291/2020, 15856/2020, 15858/2020 & 18719-20/2020 & RC.REV. 129/2020

1. Petitioner in RC.REV. 599/2018 (i.e. Respondent No. 1 in the Eviction Petition) is the Tenant in the tenanted property and impugns order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the Rent Controller, dismissing the application for grant of leave to defend the Eviction Petition filed by Respondents 1 & 2 therein (i.e. Petitioners in the Eviction Petition).

2. Petitioner in RC.REV. 129/2020 (i.e. Respondent No. 2 in the Eviction Petition) is a co-owner of the subject property and impugns order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the Rent Controller to the limited extent that the Tenant has been directed to deliver possession of the tenanted premises exclusively to Respondent No. 2 & 3 (i.e. the EVICTION PETITIONERS).

3. For the sake of convenience Petitioner in RC.REV. 599/2018 (also the Respondent No. 1 in RC.REV. 129/2020) shall be referred to as the TENANT. Petitioner in RC.REV. 129/2020 (also the Respondent No. 3 in RC.REV. 599/2018) shall be referred to as the CO-OWNER. Respondent No. 1 & 2 in RC.REV. 599/2018 (also the Respondent No. 2 & 3 in RC.REV. 129/2020) shall be referred to as the EVICTION PETITIONERS.

4. The EVICTION PETITIONERS filed the subject Eviction Petition under section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Act') seeking eviction of the TENANT on the ground of bonafide necessity. The TENANT sought leave to defend the eviction petition but by the impugned order dated 09.07.2018, the application seeking leave to defend filed by the TENANT has been dismissed and an eviction order has been passed.

5. The EVICTION PETITIONERS contended in the eviction petition, that they are the co-owners of property bearing No. G 3, situated in New Delhi South Extension Market, N.D.S.E.-I, New Delhi-110049. Said property was purchased jointly by (i) Smt. Usha Rani Tandon, mother of the EVICTION PETITIONERS, (ii) Sh. Ravi Shanker and (iii) Sh. Subhash Tandon by way of a registered sale deed dated 09.04.1969. The sale deed describes the shares of aforesaid persons in the property. The mother of the EVICTION PETITIONERS possessed 50% share in the said property.

6. It is contended that upon death of Smt. Usha Rani Tandon on 01.08.1993 and in pursuance to registered Relinquishment Deed dated 30.08.1993 executed by Sh. Purshottam Lai Tandon and Relinquishment Deed dated 30.08.1993 executed by Smt. Ritika Sachdev, EVICTION PETITIONERS succeeded to the half share (50%) in the above said property. Other 25% share which was owned by Sh. Ravi Shankar has been succeeded by Sh. Rajiv Tandon (Petitioner in RC.REV. 129/2020 the CO-OWNER). Remaining 25% in the property is now jointly owned by (i) Smt. Madhu Rani Tandon, (ii) Sh. Sanjeev Tandon, (iii) Sh. Sumeet Tandon and (iv) Sh. Sudhir Tandon.

7. It is further contended that Smt. Usha Rani Tandon along with other co-owners entered into the lease agreement dated 12.05.1979 with the TENANT for letting out one shop measuring 67 x 14.5 ft. on the ground floor of the entire property no. G 3. The monthly rent was Rs. 1,000/-. Later on, a basement measuring 46 x 14.5 ft. was constructed underneath this shop and the rate of rent was increased to Rs. 1,200/- per month. The shop on the ground floor along with the basement underneath is the subject tenanted premises.

8. It is inter alia contended in the Eviction Petition that the EVICTION PETITIONERS require the tenanted premises to fulfill the bonafide need of their children. It is stated that the son of Eviction petitioner no. 1 and elder daughter of Eviction petitioner no. 2, intend to start their own business in partnership with each other, however, due to unavailability of any suitable commercial space they are unable to start the same.

9. It is contended that the Eviction Petitioner No. 1 has two sons (1) Karti