JUDGMENT

Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral)--By this petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short `the Act'), the petitioner/tenant impugns the judgment passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 31.10.2012, by which the Additional Rent Controller has decreed the bona fide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act by the respondents/landlords with respect to the tenanted premises being shop no. 53(new), Old Rajinder Nagar Market, New Delhi.

2. The facts which were pleaded by the respondents/landlords were that the tenanted shop/suit premises were required for the bona fide need of the respondent no.2 herein, and who was the petitioner no.2 before the Additional Rent Controller. The need which was pleaded was that the respondent no.2 does not have any other commercial premises in Delhi and he wants to start his own business in the suit/tenanted property. It was pleaded that the respondent no.1 herein, petitioner no.1 before the Additional Rent Controller and the co-landlord, was already carrying on his business from one other shop in the property in which the tenanted premises were situated, and therefore, the bona fide necessity eviction petition was only with respect to the bona fide need of the respondent no.2 herein to start his business.

3. In a bona fide necessity eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, three aspects have to be seen by the court. First is whether the respondents/landlords are the owners/landlords of the suit premises or not. Secondly, whether there exists a bona fide need of the landlord, and thirdly whether the landlord has any other suitable alternative premises so as not to require the suit premises.

4. As per the case of the petitioner/tenant itself in the leave to defend application, originally the petitioner firm was a partnership firm which got dissolved and rights in the dissolved firm with its tenanted premises thereafter came to be vested with one of the partners Sh. Gurbachan Singh. Sh. Jitender Pal Singh is the son of Sh. Gurbachan Singh, and the present proprietor of the petitioner firm, and who is hence the present tenant in the tenanted premises. It is further pleaded in the leave to defend application that Sh. Gurbachan Singh himself was tendering rent to the respondents/landlords. Accordingly, it was pleaded that there was no partnership firm and the tenancy rights now solely vest with Sh. Jitender Pal Singh who is now the sole proprietor of the petitioner firm. In the leave to defend application it was further simultaneously pleaded, and which is an alternative plea to the aforesaid plea of Sh. Jitender Pal Singh being the sole proprietor of the petitioner firm, that the eviction petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties because the legal heirs of the other partners, who have since died, have not been sued as respondents in the eviction petition in spite of the fact that there are other eviction petitions filed and in which the other legal heirs of the other partners have been brought on record. It is also pleaded that there was a subsequent event during the pendency of the eviction petition that the respondents/landlords got possession of one shop bearing no. 53-A in the same property, and this subsequent event as pleaded should satisfy the bona fide need in the eviction petition and which was accordingly prayed that the same be dismissed. Finally, it was argued that the respondents/landlords have been taking different stands in different eviction petitions with respect to the area and extent of the tenanted premises, and therefore, the eviction petition is bound to be dismissed.

5. So far as the aspect of respondents/landlords being the owners/landlords are concerned, the admitted position which appears on record is that the suit premises were originally owned by Sh. C.R.Wason, grandfather of the respondent no.1 and father of respondent no.2. After the death of Sh. C.R.Wason all the legal heirs executed