Usha Mehra ( 1 ) "diwan Singh, the present revisionist haschallenged the order of eviction passed against him under Section 14 (l) (e),read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called theact ). The order of eviction has been assailed inter alia on the ground thatrespondent/petitioners before the Additional Rent Controller had no locus standito file eviction petition because they were neither owner of the property inquestion nor their need bona fide. In the absence of bona fide need the eviction order could not have been passed. ( 2 ) FACTS in brief are that the preseat petitioner was inducted as atenant with regard to one room in property No. 2/49 Harijan Basti, Sarairohilla, Rohtak Road, Delhi, by one Smt. Naraini Devi, on a monthly rentof Rs. 30. 00 inclusive of electricity and water charges, 0m Parkash, repondentno. 1 alleged himself to be the husband and respondents 2 and 3 daughtersof the said Naraini Devi. They, therefore claimed themselves as landlord/owner of the property and, therefore, claimed petition on the ground ofbona fide requirements. This petition was contested by the petitioner/tenanton the ground that the said 0m Prakash had been taking contradictory standbefore various Courts regarding Smt. Naraini Devi s existence. In a suitbearing No. 406/74, titled as Thakar Kanchan Singh v. Shri 0m Prakash andors. decided by Shri V. K. Jain, Sub Judge, 0m Prakash took the plea thatsmt. Naraini Devi was still alive. Whereas in a subsequent suit he allegedthat Smt. Naraini Devi was presumed not to be dead. This statement wasmade by him on 15. 1. 80. This shows he was not aware about Smt. Narainidevi. This further proves that he was not her husband, and therefore, had noauthority to file the eviction petition. However the Court below after recording the evidence passed the eviction order holding that 0m Prakash, Sarojrani and Usha Rani were the legal representatives of late Naraini Devi beingher husband and daughters respectively. Therefore, being legal heir steppedinto the shoes of the owner. They had the right to institute the evictionpetition. They had the locus standi. It was also held that since 0m Prakashwas living in one room, the said accommodation was not sufficient for him. Both his married daughters visit him, therefore, he required additionalaccommodation and hence allowed the petition. It is against this order ofeviction that the petitioner has filed this revision petition. They had the locus standi. It was also held that since 0m Prakashwas living in one room, the said accommodation was not sufficient for him. Both his married daughters visit him, therefore, he required additionalaccommodation and hence allowed the petition. It is against this order ofeviction that the petitioner has filed this revision petition. His challenge isprimarily on the ground that there is no proof placed on record that Smt. Naraini Devi is dead or that 0m Prakash is her husband and Saroj and Ushaher daughters. Nor he had the authority to file the eviction petition. Afterrecording evidence, eviction order was passed wherein it has been field that0m Prakash, Saroj Rani and Usha Rani were the husband and daughtersrespectively of late Naraini Devi. They, therefore, being the legal heirs of theowner of the property, had the right to institute the eviction petition andhence had the locus standi. It was also held that since 0m Prakash wasliving in one room, it was not sufficient accommodation for him, his both themarried daughters visit him, therefore, he required additional accommodation. Hence allowed the petition. It is against this order that the present petitionhas been filed challenging the order on the ground that there is no documentary evidence placed on record to prove that Naraini Devi is dead or that0m Parkash was her husband and Saroj and Usha their daughters, 0mprakash and others could not be the owner of the property. ( 3 ) MI. K. . R. Chawla, Counsel for the petitioner, urged that respondents had no locus standi to file this eviction petition. In the petitionit was not mentioned that they became owner by inheritance. In theabsence of any pleading, on amount of evidence adduced by themcould be looked into. He drew my attention to paras 3,8 and 18 (a)of the petition, where the petitioners namely 0m Prakash,sarojandushahad simply alleged themselves to be the owner/landlord without specifying asto how they became so. Whereas admitted facts are that 0m Prakash hadbeen receiving the rent till 1979 in the name and on behalf of Smt. Narainidevi. If Smt. Naraini Devi was dead, then why 0m Prakash kept on receiving the rent in her name? No documentary evidence was placed on record toprove that Smt. Naraini Devi died in June, 1971. 0m Prakash. appearing asaw-I, admitted that Smt. Naraini Devi died in Hindu Rao Hospital, but didnot produce any death certificate. If Smt. Naraini Devi was dead, then why 0m Prakash kept on receiving the rent in her name? No documentary evidence was placed on record toprove that Smt. Naraini Devi died in June, 1971. 0m Prakash. appearing asaw-I, admitted that Smt. Naraini Devi died in Hindu Rao Hospital, but didnot produce any death certificate. Having failed to produce it cannot bepresumed that Naraini Devi, the real owner is dead. Therefore, the questionof succession does not arise. As regard Ex, AW-I/i, the judgment deliveredby Shri V. K. Jain, Sub Judge, Delhi, that was not inter se the parties, andtherefore, not relevant for the determination of the facts of this case. In thecase before Mr. Jain no documentary evidence was produced to establish thatsmt. Naraini Devi died. Rather AW-I/i shows that one Nirmala Devi diedin the Hindu Rao Hospital. Hence Ex. AW-I/i does not prove that Narainidevi died in hospital on 20. 6. 71 -. In the absence of any proof of Narainidevi s death the respondents cannot claim themselves to be the owner of theproperty in question. So far as the witnesses produced by the landlord areconcerned they are not reliable. Guru Dutt, AW-4, is alleged to be the brotherof Smt. Naraini Devi. He could not describe about the property in question, norcould tell when Smt. Naraini Devi died. Had he been brother he would haveknown about this property as well as about the death of Smt. Naraini Devi 7the factumof Guru Dutt being the brother of Smt. Naraini Devi is doubtful,therefore, no reliance can be placed on his testimony. The evidence of AW-4,guru Dutt, is also evasive. Even otherwise 0m Prakash himself in his crossexamination admitted that he had been receiving the rent in the name ofnaraini Devi. If Naraini Devi was his wife and died in 1971 then whatprevented 0m Prakash from receiving the rent in his own name after June,1971. The act shows that respondents were not related to Naraini Devi butare taking advantage of her absence. ( 4 ) MR. Chawla contended that it was not for the tenant to prove thatnaraini Devi was dead or alive. The burden lay heavily on the respondentsbut they miserably failed to discharge the burden. Nor 0m Prakash by anycogent evidence could prove that he was her husband and being a husbandbecame owner by inheritance. The judgment Ex, AW-I/i is not ajudgment inrem. Chawla contended that it was not for the tenant to prove thatnaraini Devi was dead or alive. The burden lay heavily on the respondentsbut they miserably failed to discharge the burden. Nor 0m Prakash by anycogent evidence could prove that he was her husband and being a husbandbecame owner by inheritance. The judgment Ex, AW-I/i is not ajudgment inrem. lt was a judgment relating to the facts of that case, applicable only to theparties of that case. Mr. Chawla urged that in the reply filed by the petitionerit was specifically denied that Naraini Devi was the wife of 0m Prakash. Therespondent did not take any step to prove the same. Even in the notice dated30. 3. 80. Ex. AW-1/4, it has nowhere been mentioned that 0m Prakashbecame owner of the property in question on account of inheritance after thedeath of Naraini Devi. From the reading of notice Ex. AW-1/4, it is clear0m Prakash and his daughters proclaimed themselves to be owner as of rightas if they purchased the property and not inherited it. Therefore, theirevidence that they inherited the property after the death of Naraini Devi isin variance as well as beyond pleadings. Hence could not have been lookedinto by the Add ). Rent Controller. In para 18-A of the petition, the respondents claimed themselves to be the owner without indicating the story ofinheritance. The petitioner never attorned to the respondents as his landlord/owner. He had throughout been paying the rent to Naraini Devi. Thatposition has been accepted by 0m Prakash. Therefore, 0m Prakash cannotclaim himself to be the owner of the property. Therefore, the petition onaccount of his bona fide requirement is not maintainable. As regards thejudgment delivered by Shri G. P. Thareja. Additional Judge, Small Cause Courtsdated 20. 7. 84, that does into establish the death of Naraini Devi nor provesthat 0m Prakash was her husband. Moreover, Mr. G. P. Thareja, Addl. Judge, Small Cause Court, was only dealing with the non-payment of renthe was not called upon to decide whether 0m Prakash was the husband ofsmt. Naraini Devi, or that Naraini Devi had died. Hence the observationsmade by Mr. Thareja, Addi. Judge, Small Cause Court, will have no bearingon the disputed question of facts of this case. Mr. Chawla, therefore,contended that 0m Prakash and his daughters cannot claim the premises fortheir requirement. Even otherwise 0m Prakash has sufficient accommodation. Naraini Devi, or that Naraini Devi had died. Hence the observationsmade by Mr. Thareja, Addi. Judge, Small Cause Court, will have no bearingon the disputed question of facts of this case. Mr. Chawla, therefore,contended that 0m Prakash and his daughters cannot claim the premises fortheir requirement. Even otherwise 0m Prakash has sufficient accommodation. He has one room on the ground floor and one "kacha Juggi" on the firstfloor. His both daughters, respondents are married. During the pendency ofthe petition he sold away one room and inducted a tenant by the name oframesh in another room. Therefore, his needs are neither bona fide norgenuine. He has sufficient accommodation with him. ( 5 ) MRS. Dahiya contended that before dealing the merits of thispetition she would like to raise legal objections about the maintainability ofthis Petition. According to her the scope and ambit of revisional jurisdictionof this Court is very limited. This Court can interfere with the judgment ofthe Court below only when there is mistake of law. In the present case nomistake of law has been pointed out by the revisionist. He is only asking thiscourt to reassess and reapprise the evidence and thus interfere with thefinding of the fact, which is not permissible under the law. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the respondents while refuting the arguments contendedthat there is voluminous evidentiary and documentary evidence placed onrecord which establishes beyond about that 0m Prakash and his daughtersinherited the property after the death of Smt. Naraini Devi, being the onlysurviving legal heirs. In this regard she placed reliance on Ex. AW-1/6, dated5. 2. 72 the letter written by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance ). This document had been admitted by the petitioner in Court on4. 2. 88. A perusal of this letter, Mrs. Dahiya urged, clearly shows that thepetitioner admitted that Naraini Devi died in June, 1971, leaving behind0m Prakash, as her husband. He also admitted vide Ex. AW-1/6 that 0mprakash had been living in the property in question since June 1971. Videex. AW 1/6, there is an admission on the part of the petitioner that sincejune, 1971, no one has heard about Smt. Naraini Devi. This admission clearlyproves that no one heard about Naraini Devi for more than seven years,therefore, under the law, the presumption can be drawn that she must havedied. Besides this admission vide Ex. AW-1/6. 0m Prakash also produced thesale deed Ex. This admission clearlyproves that no one heard about Naraini Devi for more than seven years,therefore, under the law, the presumption can be drawn that she must havedied. Besides this admission vide Ex. AW-1/6. 0m Prakash also produced thesale deed Ex. AW-3-1, by which Naraini Devi purchased this house. Readingof Ex. AW-3/1 establishes beyond doubt that 0m Prakash is the husband ofnaraini Devi. Besides the testimony of AW-4, Guru Dutt, brother of Smt. Naraini Devi, there is an uncontroverted and unrebutted evidence of Sevaram, the old servant of Smt. Naraini Devi, who appearing as AW-2,testified that 0m Prakash was her husband and Saroj and Usha her daughters. That they were living togehter when he was working in the milk shopof Naraini Devi. He denied that Naraini Devi was his niece. No materialcontradiction could be elicited in his cross examination by which it could beinferred that be was deposing falsely. Mrs. Dahiya also drew my attention tothe written statement filed by the petitioner. In the written statement, headmitted that in the month of June, 1971. 0m Prakash informed the tenants,that Naraini Devi, his wife. died on 20. 6. 71 and that he had become theowner of the premises. Besides the admission in the written statement, thepetitioner appearing as RW-I, admitted that after the death of Naraini Devi,0m Prakash came to him and told that his wife Naraini Devi had died andthat the rent should be given to him. The petitioner, thereafter, started payingrent to 0m Prakash. This admission, on the part of the petitioner, clearlyproves that 0m Prakash was the husband of Naraini Devi and after herdeath became the owner of the property by inheritance. This admissionfurther establishes that the petitioner knew about the death of Naraini Devion 20. 6. 1971. The statement of the petitioner also establishes that 0mprakash occupied one room in the property in question. He had beencollecting the rent from all the tenants, though rent receipts were issued inthe name of his wife. The factum of the death of Smt. Naraini Devi was madeknown to all the tenants. Mrs. Dahiya, therefore, contended that it does notlie in the month of the petitioner now to urge that 0m Prakash was not thehusband of Naraini Devi or that she was not dead or this fact was notinformed to him. The factum of the death of Smt. Naraini Devi was madeknown to all the tenants. Mrs. Dahiya, therefore, contended that it does notlie in the month of the petitioner now to urge that 0m Prakash was not thehusband of Naraini Devi or that she was not dead or this fact was notinformed to him. The admission by the petitioner of these facts made in thewritten statement as well as by his statement before the Court belies thearguments of the Counsel for petitioner now urged. In view of the facts beingadmitted, the Additional Rent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that0m Prakash, Usha and Saroj were the only legal heirs of Smt. Naraini Deviand after her death, became the owner/landlord of the property in questionand therefore, had the right to file the eviction petition. ( 7 ) SO far as bona fide requirement is concerned, 0m Prakash hasgot only one room and a kacha Jhuggi on the first floor. His twomarried daughters visit him frequently for which purpose he requires anotherroom. The owner/landlord cannot be forced or dragged to live in a jhuggi . When his family members visit him he has to offer the room to them, andtherefore, forced to sleep himself in the kacha Jhuggi on the first floor. This cannot be called a suitable accommodation. Therefore, the Trial Courtwas justified in coming to the conclusion that the landlord/owner requires thepremises for his bona fide requirement. So far as the allegation of letting outand sale of the premises after the institution of the petition are concernedthat is belied from the evidence placed on record. Ramesh Kumar was atenant much before the institution of the petition and Sri Prakash Goel towhom the shop is sold, had in fact been a tenant in that very shop for the lastcouple of years. Since he was already occupying the shop, therefore, it wassold to him. The selling of shop would not mean that landlord/owner doesnot require the residential premises for his bona fide requirement. ( 8 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the Counsel. It is a well settled principle of law that ownershipof the property cannot be a question in revisional proceedings nor it is opento the tenant to raise the question of the validity of inheritance. He has nolocus standi to do so. ( 8 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the Counsel. It is a well settled principle of law that ownershipof the property cannot be a question in revisional proceedings nor it is opento the tenant to raise the question of the validity of inheritance. He has nolocus standi to do so. There is an overwhelming evidence on record fromwhich it can be inferred that 0m Prakash, Saroj and Usha inherited theproperty in question from Smt. Naraini Devi. Before discussing theevidence, reliance can also be placed on the admission made. by the presentpetitioner in the written statement filed by him before the Trial Court. Inparagraph I of the preliminary objection, he admitted that "0m Prakashcame in the suit premises and asked the tenants of the said premises to payhim the monthly rent as Smt. Naraini Devi had authorised him to collect therent from the tenants of the suit premises. He alongwith other tenants ofthe suit premises started paying rent to 0m Prakash against the rent receipt,but in the month of June 1971, 0m Prakash informed him and other tenantsthat Smt. Naraini Devi his wife had died on 20-6-71 and now he had becomethe owner of the suit premises, therefore, the rent should be paid to him. It is also an admitted fact on record that after June 1971 this very petitionerstarted paying rent to 0m Prakash. Thus by this conduct he attorned to0m Prakash as his owner/landlord. Otherwise after having come to knowthat Smt. Naraini Devi, owner of the premises, had died on 20-6-71, why thepetitioner paid the rent to 0m Prakash. If he was doubtful about his Locusstandi he could have refused to pay the rent to stranger. The respondent isright when be contended that the petitioner knew fully well that he was thehusband of Smt. Naraini Devi and hence started paying the rent to him afterher death. It is also clear from the reading of the written statement that thepetitioner knew that Naraini Devi died on 20-6-71. This fact find furthersupport from the judgment of Shri G. P. Thareja, Addl, Judge, Small Causecourt, dated 20-7-84 which is inter se the parties, in which present petitionerwas the defendant and the respondents 0m Prakash, Usha and Saroj werethe plaintiffs. The issue betore the Court was whether the plaintiffs wereentitled to the rent from the defendant. On this issue the Court relying onthe letter Ex. The issue betore the Court was whether the plaintiffs wereentitled to the rent from the defendant. On this issue the Court relying onthe letter Ex. AW-1/6 held that 0m Prakash was the husband ofsmt. Naraini Devi, and plaintiffs 2 and 3 her daughters. They were held to bethe owner of the property in question and entitled to receive rent. In viewof this judicial pronouncement which was not challenged at any stage theparties are bound by that decision. The petitioner now cannot assail thatdecision nor can dispute that 0m Prakash, Usha Rani and Saroj Rani are notthe owner and landlord of the property in question. To my mind, it is notopen to the petitioner to raise the question of inheritance ownership andrelationship of owner/landlord-tenant. ( 9 ) SO far as Mr. Chawla s contention that in the petition it was notpleaded that 0m Prakash inherited the property after the death of his wife,to my mind, was not necessary because the factum of Naraini Devi s deathand his being her husband had been conveyed by him to his tenants as farback as in June 1971 itself, which fact is admitted by the present petitionerin his written statement also. The petitioner also attorned to 0m Prakashwhen he paid the rent after the death of Naraini Devi in June 1971. Hencein the pleadings when the respondents claimed themselves to be the ownersof the property that was sufficient compliance of the requirement of the law. Respondents were not supposed to plead evidence. Respondents being theonly legal heirs of Naraini Devi became joint owner of the property in question. Being owner/landlord they had the right to file the eviction petition. Hence the objection of Mr. Chawla on these accounts has no force. ( 10 ) NOW coming to the question of bonafide requirement, it is anadmitted case of the parties that 0m Prakash is living in the property inquestion in one room. The other two co-owners have since been married. He has a jhuggi on the first floor which according to 0m Prakash is verysmall and a kacha sort of Jhuggi . He is infact occupying only one room,which fact is admitted by the petitioner. In the written statement filed beforethe Trial Court in reply to para 18-A, the petitioner admitted that0m Prakash was in occupation of one room in the suit premises. He is infact occupying only one room,which fact is admitted by the petitioner. In the written statement filed beforethe Trial Court in reply to para 18-A, the petitioner admitted that0m Prakash was in occupation of one room in the suit premises. It wasfurther alleged that, that room had been partitioned into three and let out tos/shri Laxman, Suresh and Prem. They are living with 0m Prakash andpaying rent to him. It was also the case of the petitioner, that one roomwas sold and another room was let out during the pendency of the petition. Respondent 0m Prakash appearing as A. W-1, clarified that he neither soldany room nor parted with possession of any portion of his room nor let outany room in the property in question. He was in occupation of one roomwhich no one has been sharing with him. On this part of his testimony hewas not subjected to any cross examination, not even a suggestion was putthat he was sharing his room with either Prem, Laxman or Suresh. Fromthe plan Ex. AW-1/3 it is clear that the room which is in his occupation hasbeen shown as Mark-A. Mark-B room shown in Ex. AW-1/3 is in occupation of a tenant by the name of Sayed-Ur-Rehman. His room is adjacent tothe room of 0m Prakash. Having put the question that Mark-B is in possession of Sayed-Ur-Rehman, again a question was put to 0m Prakash thatmark-B is a part of his room and he let out the same to S/shri Laxman,suresh and Prem. These two suggestions are contradictory to each other. This proves that petitioner is not sure of his defence and further that0m Prakash has not sublet his room to S/shri Prem, Suresh and Laxman. This rather proves that room Mark-B is in occupation of an old tenantsayed-Ur-Rehman. 0m Prakash denied that he was having another accommodation available with him either in this house or anywhere else. Heproduced his ration card, copy of which is Ex. AW-1/5, to prove that he wasliving in this very house, he further testified that the room in his occupationis of the size of 6 ft. x 6 ft. , where except one cot nothing else can beaccommodated. According to him the khokha which had been put on thefirst floor was in occupation of ramesh, a tenant. He denied that he hasany house in Shastri Nagar. x 6 ft. , where except one cot nothing else can beaccommodated. According to him the khokha which had been put on thefirst floor was in occupation of ramesh, a tenant. He denied that he hasany house in Shastri Nagar. From such a lengthy cross examination, nothingcould be elicited from which it could be inferred that 0m Prakash was notrequiring the additional accommodation for his bona fide requirement. He,however, admitted that he sold one shop to Shri Siri Prakash Goel in1982. Sh. Siri Prakash Goel was occupying this shop much before the samewas sold to him. Counter foils of the receipt to show that Sh. Siri Prakashwas a tenant much before the shop was sold to him have been proved as Ex. AW-l/x to AW-IZ. So far as the Jhuggi on the first floor is concerned heexplained that it had a roof of tarpal and the same was blown away. Thefactum of his being in occupation of one room and his daughters visiting himcare corroborated by the testimony of Seva Ram, AW-2. That Siri Prakashooel was in occupation of this premises as tenant since 1978 has been testifiedby Sh. Siri Prakash Goel himself when he appeard as AW-5. RW-I, Dewansingh, the present petitioner, admitted that Ramesh Kumar was occupyingthe suit premises for the last five years and this statement he made in1985-86. Ramesh Kumar occupied the room with a tin shed roof whereasaccording to 0m Prakash, Ramesh Kumar was occupying this premises priorto the institution of the petition. So far as the sale of the room or shop isconcerned that has been explained by 0m Prakash as well as by the testimony of Siri Prakash Goel. From this overwhelming evidence it is clearthat the owner is in occupation of only one room measuring 6 ft. x 6 ft. andhe had kacha Jhuggi on the first floor. Mr. Chawla fairly conceded thatsince both the daughters are married and being co-owners they have a rightof accommodation whenever they visit 0m Prakash. their father. Therefore,atleast two proper rooms are required by 0m Prakash. Since he has got onlyone room and other being only a Jhuggi, to my mind. the Additional Rent Controller. Delhi, rightly came to the conclusion that the need of the owner/landlord was bona fide. ( 11 ) I find no infermity in the impugned order. The petition isaccordingly dismissed.