SHEHNAZ BEGUM Vs. KARAMVIR SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, brought under proviso to Sec. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioners/tenants have assailed the eviction order dtd. 25/2/2015, passed after full dress trial by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Delhi in the proceedings under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act ("the Act"). The present petitioners and the present respondent no. 2 (proforma respondent) are legal representatives of the originally inducted tenant Mohd Usman. For convenience, the respondent no. 1 (landlord) herein is referred to as "the present respondent" since the respondent no. 2, being one of the legal representatives of the originally inducted tenant, opted not to join these proceedings. On issuance of notice of these proceedings, the respondent/landlord entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows.

(3.) During arguments, learned counsel for petitioners assailed the impugned order strongly on the ground that the issues of bona fide requirement and availability of alternate accommodation have not been dealt with by the trial court despite having passed the impugned eviction order after full dress trial. It was also argued by learned counsel for petitioners that by the time the eviction petition came to be filed, Mohd. Iqbal, one of the legal representative of Mohd. Usman had already died and a petition against dead person is a nullity. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that in his cross examination, the present respondent specifically stated that he has not been paying rent of the shop from where he is currently running business, which goes to show that there is no threat to the present respondent of being evicted from that shop, so there is no bona fide requirement for the subject premises.