MOKHAM SINGH Vs. KHURSHID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant in respect of first floor and barsati floor/servant quarter of premises bearing No. B-171, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi and is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter to be referred to as, `the ARC') dated 26.09.2002 allowing the petition filed by respondent No. 1 for bona fide requirement of the premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, `the said Act').

(2.) The petition for eviction was filed by respondent No. 1, co-owner of the property, as far back in July, 1989. The premises were stated to be let out for residential purposes where the petitioner was residing with his family members. The property was originally owned by Shri Shyam Mohan Mehra and was sold vide sale deed dated 13.11.1981 to respondent No. 1 along with respondents No. 2 to 6. The premises were stated to be required bona fide for respondent No. 1 for himself and his family members.

(3.) It may be noticed that respondents No. 2 to 6 were originally the petitioners, but were subsequently transposed as respondents in the petition being the co- owners. This requirement arose on account of the fact that the petition was originally instituted by respondent No. 1 herein on his behalf as well as being attorney of respondents No. 2 to 6. Respondents No. 2 to 6 claimed that the power of attorney had been revoked on 17.02.1988 and that it had been only given for the purpose of filing suit against levy of house-tax and not for filing eviction petition. This position was, however, disputed by respondent No. 1 on the ground that on the very basis of this power of attorney, various proceedings had been instituted by him to the knowledge of respondents No. 2 to 6 and the receipt of any notice of revocation of power of attorney was denied. This question was dealt with by the order dated 07.03.1998 of the ARC coming to a finding that if the property is jointly owned, then all co-owners have to be joined as co-plaintiffs or respondents. Assuming the argument of respondents No. 2 to 6 to be correct, even then the ARC found that if it was so, the defect was curable and, thus, the question of the validity of power of attorney was not gone into and respondents No. 2 to 6 were permitted to sign the petition.