Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.:— The revision petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller whereby an application of the petitioners under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was dismissed and eviction order was passed.
2. The petitioners admittedly were tenants under the respondent in respect of one room of 10″ × 10″ and one tin shed 8″ × 8″ with one bath inside the tin shed room on the ground floor with no terrace rights. The premises was let out to Abdul Muqeem, husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner no. 2&3 for residential purpose. Tenancy of Abdul Muqeem was terminated vide notice dated 11.3.2005 during his lifetime. However, Abdul Muqeem died on 12.10.2005 and the petitioners (hereinafter called as ‘tenants’;) inherited the tenancy rights by operation of law. The respondent (hereinafter called as ‘landlord’) in his eviction petition contended that he had 18 family members and the accommodation available with him and his family members was highly insufficient. His family consisted of himself, his wife, ten sons out of whom four were married, wives of his married sons and their children. The landlord contended that property in question, no. 1483-1492 was owned by him along with his brother. It consisted of 21 shops, 02 godowns, 02 tin sheds and one store on the ground floor, besides some residential portion including the suit premises. Out of this accommodation, 06 shops, 02 godowns, 02 tin sheds, one store were in possession of himself and his family members, who were running their businesses therefrom. The rest of the shops were in the possession of the different tenants. He was not in possession of any residential accommodation in the property. He was also the owner of MIG Flat No. B-3/10 DDA flats, Sarai Khalil consisting of one drawing-cum-dining, two bed-rooms, one kitchen, one bath, one latrine and one balcony. He had made further additions in the property and constructed two bed-rooms, one drawing room, latrine and bath on the terrace. One room on the terrace was in possession of his son Abdul Rehman and his family and the other room on terrace was in possession of his son Hafizur Rehman and his family. The drawing room on the terrace was used for keeping household articles and for sleeping of his three unmarried sons. One room of the MIG Flat was in his possession where he and his wife lived and the other room was used for keeping household goods and for sleeping by the remaining three unmarried sons. His other two married sons were living with their families in rented accommodation at Inderlok and Sarai Khalil. He owned a commercial plot at Shahzada Bagh, Inderlok, which was in possession of his younger brother Abdul Majid. The accommodation available with him was highly insufficient.
3. The tenants in their application for leave to defend contended that the landlord was in possession of several properties including property in question measuring 700 sq. yards. The landlord had constructed a market on the ground floor and first floor and had let out the same to different tenants and was having income of Rs. 80,000/- per month. Fourth and fifth floors in this property were being used by the landlord himself. He also owned two flats at Sarai Khalil and one house in Inderlok in his own name. He filed this petition malafidely sine the tenancy was very old tenancy and monthly rent was Rs. 3.75, which landlord refused to accept. The landlord had no bona fide requirement as he had got lot of immovable properties.
4. The learned ARC considered the rival contentions and the requirement of the landlord and came to the conclusion that the landlord had successfully shown that his requirement was bona fide and the tenants have failed to bring on record any fact which would have entitled them for leave to defend.
5. The extent of family of the landlord has not been disputed by the tenant in this case. In India, the joint family system still prevails and the Courts have to take into account not only the bona fide need of the landlord and his wife but also, the needs of their sons and daughters who live with them or keep on visiting them. Where the families are doing business jointly and living jointly, the Courts cannot deny the bona fide necessity of the sons and visiting daughters even if sons are married. In the present case, landlord had ten sons out of which four were married and had families, two of them were living with the landlord in a different accommodation which has been disclosed by the landlord. Two of the married sons were living in rented houses. Six of his unmarried sons were living along with the landlord in a condition that they all had to sleep in drawing rooms. His married sons living with him also had families. The Trial Court assessed that the minimum requirement of the landlord was 15 bed-rooms and the necessity of the landlord was a bona fide necessity. The tenants though alleged in the leave to defend application that landlord had several immovable properties but had failed to bring on record details of a single immovable property, apart from the one, which were stated by the landlord himself.
6. The Counsel for the petitioner contended that the property was jointly owned by the landlord and his brother but the eviction petition was filed only by one brother therefore it was not maintainable. I consider this argument is untenable. Where the property is owned by one or more co-owners, one of the co-owners can file a petition for eviction of tenant for his bona fide necessity. It is not necessary to join other co-owners.
7. It is settled law that this Court, while sitting in revision, cannot substitute its own judgment in place of the judgment of the learned ARC. The Court can set aside the order of the ARC only if there was some manifest error either of facts or of law on the face of the judgment. The error must be so glaring that it vitiates the judgment itself. The proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act indicates that power of High Court is supervisory in nature and it is intended to ensure that the Rent Controller confirm to law when he passes the order. The satisfaction of the High Court must be confirmed to the limited sphere that the order of the Rent Controller is “according to the law”.
8. I consider that this revision petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is hereby dismissed.