Goswamy ( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is directed against the order dated 8. 6. 1981 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the petition for eviction filed by the petitioners was dismissed. ( 2 ) ORIGINALLY petitioner No. I had filed a petition for eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for eviction of the respondents from the premises in dispute namely first floor of C-315, Defence Colony, New Delhi. On an objection in the application for leave to defend regarding petitioner No. 1, not being the owner of the property, the petition was amended and petitioner No. 2 was impleaded as a party. In paragraph 18 (a) of the petition, it was alleged:- "the premises were let out to respondent no. 1 for residential purpose and the same are required by the petitioner bona fide for the residence of Shri Prem Pandhi and his family members who is also karta of HUF petitioner No. 1. since Prem Pandhi has retired w. e. f. 1. 1. 1981 as Chairman of M/s. Cadbury (India) Pvt. Ltd. After his retirement he has been asked by the company to vacate the premises 5, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi which were given to him by the company as Chairman of the company. More so, the landlord of the said premises 5, Amrit Shergil Road, New Delhi has also filed an eviction - petition on the ground of bonafide necessity against M/s. Cadbury (India) Pvt. Ltd. in respect of 5, Amrita Shergil Road, New Delhi which is pending in the court of Shri V. B. Gupta, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi. Mr. Prem Pandhi does not own anyother premises in Delhi. Mr. Prem Pandhi s sister s son Ravi Chopra-is residing on the aforesaid floor and on the second floor another son of the some sister of Prem Pandhi Shashi Chopra with his family is residing for the last two years. Prem Pandhi s sister s husband, who was superintendent of Police, was killed during communal riots at Lahore in August, 1947 and Shri Prem Pandhi and his father Chander Pandhi. had brought up these two children Ravi Chopra and Shashi Chopra as their children (Ages in 1947 were approximately 8 and 6 years respectively ). The petitioner is the owner of the premises". had brought up these two children Ravi Chopra and Shashi Chopra as their children (Ages in 1947 were approximately 8 and 6 years respectively ). The petitioner is the owner of the premises". ( 3 ) THE petition was contested by the respondents. Various pleas were taken but for the present petition, I am concerned only with two main plea which were the subject matter of arguments before the Rent Controller as also before me. The first plea being that the premises were not owned by any joint Hindu family i. e. petitioner no. 1. It was pleaded that the property was mutated and stands in the name of Col. Ratten Pandhi who is owner of plot of land and the super-structure constructed on the plot of land. It was further pleaded that in any event the ownership of the super-structure goes with the plot of land. The second plea being that there was no bona fide requirement of peitioner no. 1. ( 4 ) THE petitioners filed their replication wherein they denied the allegations in the written statement and reiterated the averments made in the petition. ( 5 ) ON consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that petitioner No. 1 was not the owner of the property in dispute and it was petitioner No. 2 who was the owner. The Rent Controller also came to the conclusion that there was noting to show that the ground floor and the barsati floor of the house in question which were occupied by Shashi Chopra and Ravi Chopra were not enough for the residence of Prem Pandhi and as such there was no bona fide requirement for which the respondent could be evicted. Consequently the petition was dismissed by Judgment and order dated 8th June, 1984. ( 6 ) IN this revision petition I have been taken through the entire evidence on record. It is an admitted fact that the plot on which the house in question was constructed was leased out to Ratten Pandhi by the President of India in 1957. The case of the petitioners all along has been that the plot has been leased out to Rattan Pandhi but he had no funds to construct the building. It is an admitted fact that the plot on which the house in question was constructed was leased out to Ratten Pandhi by the President of India in 1957. The case of the petitioners all along has been that the plot has been leased out to Rattan Pandhi but he had no funds to construct the building. Consequently the plot was put in the hotch and potch and money was contributed by Chaman Lal Pandhi, Prem Pandhi and Rattan Pandhi and with those funds the house was constructed. Prem Pandhi appeared in the witness box as AW 1. He deposed that plot no. C-315, Defence Colony was issued out to his brother Rattan Pandhi. The HUF was formed by Late Chaman Lal Pandhi, the father of three sons namely Prem Pandhi. Rattan Pandhi and Gulshan Pandhi; The members ofthe HUF contributed funds and threw the same into the hotch potch with which the house on plot was raised. He further deposed that Rattan Pandhi has no individual interest in property and the property belonged to HUF. In cross, examination, he stated that in 1973 Rattan Pandbi paid the balance of the amount of Rs 3785. 00 towards the price of the plot. The money for constructing the building was pooled into the hotch potch and was put in the account of HUF, Rattan Pandbi appeared as AW2. He deposed that joint family was created in March 1961 and Chaman Lal Pandhi became its Karta and his sons Prem Pandhi Rattan Pandhi and Gulshan Pandhi became the members. All these persons pooled money into the hotch potch in the account of H. U. F. A regular bank account was opened which was being operated by his father C. L. Pandhi, Chaman Lal Pandhi contributed a sum of Rs. 25. 000. 00 , Prem Pandhi a sum of Rs 30. 400. 00 and the youngest brother contributed a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 While Rattan Pandhi Contributed a sum of Rs. 8,000. 00 apart from the plot. This contribution was shown in the application given to the Income-tax Officer. The HUF has also paid a sum of Rs. 3785. 00 from its own funds. He further deposed that HUF is assessed to income tax and he proved the certified copies of the orders of the income tax department to that effect. The said copies are Ex. This contribution was shown in the application given to the Income-tax Officer. The HUF has also paid a sum of Rs. 3785. 00 from its own funds. He further deposed that HUF is assessed to income tax and he proved the certified copies of the orders of the income tax department to that effect. The said copies are Ex. AW2/1 and AW2/3 for the assessment years 197980 and 1980-81. It was suggested to Rattan Paadhi in the cross-examination that the HUF account was opend in the bank only in the year 1965 and Rattan Pandhi denied the suggestion while staling that he had brought the account opening from and the account was opened in 1961. It was further put to him in cross examination that in the eviction petition it was stated that the house was completed in August 1960 to which Rattan Pandhi replied that it was only a typographical error and infact the house was completed in August 1961. The learned Rent Controllerrelied upon the affidavits filed by Rattan Pandhi and Chaman Lal Pandhi before the Land and Development Officer and the M. C. D. to the effect that the plot in question belonged to Rattan Pandhi and the Rent Controller came to the conclusion from those affidavits that Rattan Pandhi continued to assert his ownership over the plot even till 1973. This finding has been recorded inspite of the fact that the Rent Controller had noticed a clause in the lease agreement Ex. AW/4/1 and Ex. AW/4/2 to the effect that the land could not be transferred to any other person without the permission of the lesser. In the circumstances, no adverse inference can be drawn from the fact that the land continued to. be in the name of Rattan Pandhi and obviously the electricity connection and water connection had to continue in his name. In fact from the evidence on record, it appears that right from the beginning i. e. from 1962-63 the property was being assessed as the property of HUF and not of Rattan Pandhi. After the decision of the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed a petition for review and alongwith that petition they also filed the assessment orders right from the beginning as also the bank accounts. That review application was dismissed against which a separate revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. After the decision of the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed a petition for review and alongwith that petition they also filed the assessment orders right from the beginning as also the bank accounts. That review application was dismissed against which a separate revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. From the evidence on record, it is not necessary to allow the additional evidence because in my opinion the existing evidence was conclusive enough to establish that all the members of the joint family had contributed and the property was converted into HUF property right from its inception. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the oral statements of Prem Pandhi as also Rattan Pandhi. The Rent Controller has given no reason to disbelieve the statements-and has negatived the case of the petitioners on the short ground that there is no documentary evidence to prove that all the members had pooled their funds and the house was constructed out of these funds, It is not necessary in the circumstanced of this case that there must be documentary evidence for the reasons which I shall give in the later paragraphs. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY the premises in question were leased out to the respondents by the HUF. At an earlier occasion i. e. in 1977 or 1978 apetition was filed by the HUF as also by Rattan Pandhi for eviction on the ground that the premises were required bona fide for the use and occupation of Rattan Pandhi. If the owner was Rattan Pandhi the petitioner could have been instituted only on his behalf. That petition was compromised and second floor of the house which was also under the tenancy of the respondents was surrendered to the petitioners. It is no doubt true that the respondents had taken objection about the ownership even at that point of time but it appears that the same was not pressed as the matter was compromised out of court, though the compromise was later recorded in the court. In any case another aspect which requires consideration is whether the respondents as tenants can challenge the ownership particularly when Rattan Pandhi as also a petitioner in the petition. In any case another aspect which requires consideration is whether the respondents as tenants can challenge the ownership particularly when Rattan Pandhi as also a petitioner in the petition. The question whether the tenant has locus standi to question the ownership of the landlord un the ground that he is a mere benamidar and not the real owner of the property has been considered in various judgments in Sardarm Kirpal v. Bhagmant Roi 1962 PLR 717. Grower J. took the view that where a gift of the demised premises is made by the landlord to his wife, the tenant cannot challenge the validity of the same on the grourd that the landlord was not empowered io make the gift. It was argued in that case that the property belonged to the Joint Hindu Family and Kuldip Singb, the husband could not have made a valid gift in the name of his wife, Kirpal Kaur, because he could not alienate the coparcenary property. This contention was rejected by the learned judge and it was held that it was a matter which only the sons of Kuldip Singh could agitate and it was not open to the tenant the dispute the validity of the gift, in Ganesh Flour Mills v. Ramesh Chand 1979 DLT 87 , a learned judge of this Court did not allow the tenant to raise the objection that the partition decree was collusive. It was held that such a question could be, agitated only by the co-shares to the property arid not by the tenant. In Arjun Dass v, Afudan Lal (1971) R. C. J. (SN) 3, the learned judge of this Court held that the tenant has no locus staiidi to challenge the validity of the will made by the landlord as he is not an heir of the landlord. I had the occasion to deal with a similar contention in M/s. International Building and Furnishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. v. J. S. Rikhy and others, AIR 1985 Del 338 . In that case the plea raised by the tenant that the transfer in favour of the landlord was only benami. I had the occasion to deal with a similar contention in M/s. International Building and Furnishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and anr. v. J. S. Rikhy and others, AIR 1985 Del 338 . In that case the plea raised by the tenant that the transfer in favour of the landlord was only benami. This contention was negatived by me and it was observed : "i am of the opinion that it is not open to the petitioners to raise such pleas particularly when all heirs of Hans Raj Rikhy, the brother of the respondent have sworn affidavit to the effect that the respondent is the sole owner of the property in question and they have no right, title or interest in the said property. The statements made by all the heirs are against their own interest and I do not find any reason to doubt the same. " ( 8 ) IN Smt. Kadla Goel v. B. P. Pathak and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1599 the contention of the learned counsel for the tenant was that he had no opportunity to establish his challenge to the will on the basis of which the ownership was claimed by the landlord. It was observed in para 8 of the Report: "shri Nariman urged that the will had not been proved and that he had not been given an opportunity to establish his challenge of the will of Shri Dass. In the High Court the other co-sharers were parlies and there is nothing on record to show that theyobjected to the claim of the first respondent to the 1st floor on the strength of the will from his father. An objection for the sake of objection which has no realistic foundation, cannot be entertained seriously for the sake of processual punctiliousness. We do not agree with the con- tention. " ( 9 ) AS against all these authorities, the learned counsel for the respondent-tenant places reliance on a recent decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court iii Dnvi Dass v. Mohun Lal, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1213. In that case, the plea of the tenant was that the sale was a sham transaction. The Courts below took the view that he could not raise this objection and as such no finding was recorded on that point. The Supreme Court held that he was entitled to challenge the sale transaction as sham. In that case, the plea of the tenant was that the sale was a sham transaction. The Courts below took the view that he could not raise this objection and as such no finding was recorded on that point. The Supreme Court held that he was entitled to challenge the sale transaction as sham. The case was remitted for a finding on a point raised by the tenant. The tenant had alleged that the sale deed is a sham transaction and that no right, title or interest had passed to the landlord, Mohan Lal, Under that document, the facts of that case were peculiar. One Jugal Kishore father of Mohan Lal, the landlord in that case executed a sale deed in the name of his son Mohan Lal, acting as the Mukhtiar of Jagiri Lal and Vasdev. The tenant s plea was that this was done in order to create a ground of ejectment against him, because on earlier occasions several applications filed by Jugal Kishore as Mukhtiar of Jagiri Lal and Vasdev for ejectment of the tenant had been dismissed against him. On this. plea of the tenant, it appears the Supreme Court took the view that there was no sale and that the sale deed was merely a paper transaction. It. is for these reasons that the Supreme Court directed the findings to berecorded. In the present case before me, admittedly, the property is being treated and assessed as a HUF Property for the last several years and in fact the property was also leased out to the respondents by the said HUF. HUF claimed the ownership in the earlier petition also. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the claim of the HUF was sham or frivolous and was made only in order to seek eviction of the respondents. From the entire evidence on record the only possible collusion is that Rattan Pandhi never stayed in these premises and that the premises were earlier occupied by Chaman Lal Pandhi, the karta of the HUF and later a part of the petitioners, are occupied by Shashi Chopra and Ravi Chopra who, according to the petitioners, are dependent on the HUF for the purposes of accommodation. In the circumstances, the contention of the respondents-tenant regarding the ownership of the property being of Rattan Pandhi has to be negatived. In the circumstances, the contention of the respondents-tenant regarding the ownership of the property being of Rattan Pandhi has to be negatived. ( 10 ) NOW coming to the question of bonafide requirement, the alleged requirement is of Prem Pandhi. The said Shri Prem Pandhi was a member of petitioner No. 1 and after the death of his father Chaman Lal Pandhi, he became the karta of the HUF. The eviction was sought on the basis that Prem Pandhi retired as Chairman of M/s Cadbury (India) Pvt. Ltd. on 1st January, 1981. After his retirement he was asked by the company to vacate the premises 5, Arnrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi which were given to him by the company as Chairman of the company. More so, the landlord of the said premises namely 5, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi had also filed a petition for eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity against M/s Cadbury (India) Pvt. Ltd. which was pending in the Court of Shri V. B. Gupta, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi. Shri Prem Pandhi appeared as AW 1 and deposed that in the petitioned filed by the landlord of 5, Amrita Shergil Marg, a compromise was arrived and he had given an undertaking to the Court that the premises will we vacated by 31st January, 1983. Accordingly he vacated the premises. and shifted temporarily to D-21. New Friends Colony, New Delhi. In cross-examination, he deposed that he was the tenant of the said premises in New Friends Colony, New Delhi and simultaneously he stated that he would be happy to rent the said accommodation if the landlord accepts him as a tenant. He deposed that the landlord is very good friend of his and he is not charging any rent from him, and he was merely living there with his permission. If the subsequent events have to be taken into consideration, it is not disputed that Prem Pandhi has shifted from New Friends Colony and be is now residing in a guest house belonging to a sister concern M/s. Cadbury (India) Pvt. Ltd. for whom he is working as a consultant. If the subsequent events have to be taken into consideration, it is not disputed that Prem Pandhi has shifted from New Friends Colony and be is now residing in a guest house belonging to a sister concern M/s. Cadbury (India) Pvt. Ltd. for whom he is working as a consultant. In the guests house also he is living, temporarily with permission and obviously the other guest of the company have also to be accommodated and thus he has no independent house where he can live by right Prem Pandhi as also Rattan Pandhi have deposed that theground floor of the premises C-315, Defence Colony, New Delhi are occupied by Shashi Chopra and his family while the barsati floor is occupied by Ravi Chopra. Shashi Chopra and Ravi Chopra are the sister s sons of Prem Pandhi and according to the evidence on record they have all along been living with the family as long as they were in Delhi. It was only for a short while that these two persons were living outside Delhi and for most of the period they have reside in Delhi with family. It is not necessary in this case to determine whether these two persons are members of HUF or dependent for their accommodation on the family. In any case, the ground floor premises as also the barsati floor are not available to the family particulary for residence of Prem Pandhi. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the ground floor premises consists of two bed rooms and the barsati floor has a living room and thus it cannot be said that these premises are not sufficient for the residence of Prem Pandhi. This, in my opinion, is not a correct approach, for the simple reason that on the ground floor Shashi Chopra and his family are residing and it is too much to expect that a person like Prem Pandhi with the status he had occupied is expected to live in the same premises and share two bed rooms with another family. It also cannot be expected, that for the sake of a tenant HUF should disown Shashi Chopra and Ravi Chopra who are more or less members of the family and should seek their eviction. Admittedly Prem Pandhi has been holding a very high status and is still working as a consultant of leading companies. It also cannot be expected, that for the sake of a tenant HUF should disown Shashi Chopra and Ravi Chopra who are more or less members of the family and should seek their eviction. Admittedly Prem Pandhi has been holding a very high status and is still working as a consultant of leading companies. In the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that he can be accomo- dated in a two bed room flat along with another family. The object of the Rent Controller Act is not to put the owners on the road particularly when their need is so genuine and bona fide. It is true that the legislation was to help the tenants but the purpose has its limits and in a genuine case the law must come to the help of, the landlords also. I do not find any reason to hold that Prem Pandhi is disentitled to seek eviction of the tenants when he himself is likely to be on road after having a successful career and is now of fairly an advanced age. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons recorded above, I do not find any-option but to allow this petition. Accordingly the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. The respondent tenant will have six months time to hand over vacant possession of the premises in dispute. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.