JUDGMENT Manmohan, J.-The present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 25(B8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the DRC Act") for setting aside the eviction order dated 8th October, 1997 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in eviction petition being ENo.196/1979 filed under Section 14(1)(e) read withSection25B of the DRC Act.

2. The material facts of this case are that on 9th August, 1979 Avtar Singh Puri, Jugmeet Singh Puri and Jasmeet Singh Puri, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act against the petitioner for eviction from first and second floors of the property bearing No.

XVI 8320, W.E.A., New Delhi, which is also known as 22, Guru Gobind Singh Marg (New Rohtak Road), New Delhi - 110 005 (hereinafter referred to as "suit premises").

3. On petitioners filing an application for grant of leave to contest the eviction petition, the ARC on 8th September, 1980 granted leave to defend.

4. On 20th November, 1980, petitioner filed a written statement challenging the respondents ownership and their bona fide requirement on the ground that the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes and had been used as such, since the inception of the tenancy. It was contended that the ground floor of the property was occupied entirely by Avtar Singh and his wife. It was further stated that Jagmeet Singh, his wife and children (two daughters) were living in a very big house at Ambala where he had a big and vast agricultural farm and that he did not want to shift to Delhi. It was contended that even Jasmeet Singh at the time of filing of the petition was unmarried and entire ground floor accommodation consisting of six large bedrooms, one drawing room, dining room, puja room, offices and study room, kitchen, three bathrooms, one servant room and three large verandahs was sufficient for the entire family and the alleged requirement was mala fide.

5. However, on 8th October, 1997, the ARC passed an eviction order against the petitioner. The relevant observations of the ARCs order are reproduced here-in-below:

"5......... It is sufficiently established that at present, the petitioners 1, 2 and 3 are the co-owners of the said property; and even paying house tax in respect of the said property to the MCD; the property stands mutated in their name in the records of the DDA and in the Revenue records. This is sufficient to establish that the petitioners were the joint owners of the property as against the respondent.......... I, thus, hold that the petitioners are the owners of the said property as against the respondent and could have filed this petition validly against the respondent.

6. ...... It has thus been established on record by way of documentary evidence of the petitioner that the premises had been let out to the respondent for Residential purpose.

7. ..... In this case also, I hold the same opinion that the petitioner No. 3 has filed this petition for bona fide requirement of the said premises for his residence along with his family in his independent capacity as the co-owner of the suit premises and not only as the son of the petitioner No. 1. In any case, the requirement of the petitioner No.1 to have his only surviving son to live with him cannot be said to be mala fide. Petitioner No.3 had appeared in the witness box as A W 4 and had testified that he had shifted out of the suit premises due to paucity of accommodation and he wanted to come back and reside in the suit premises (Later on it is admitted by the respondent that he was now residing in the suit premises). It has also come on record that the relations between the petitioner No.3 as his wife were not cordial and his wife and daughter were not residing with him.

8. ...... It is noted that the respondent had not filed any site plan to counter the said site plan. It is the admitted case of the parties that the ground floor of the premises is in occupatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document