Arun kumar ( 1 ) SMT. Kamal Tanan filed the present eviction petition against the respondent on the ground contained in clause (e) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) pleading that the suit premises had been let out to the tenant for purposes of residence and the same was required bona fide by her for her own residence. She further pleaded that her husband was due to retire from Army in May 1979 and that she had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in Delhi ( 2 ) THE property in suit namely house no. 16-A/5, W. E. A Karol Bagh New Delhi was owned by late Shri M. L. Malhotra who died in the year 1969, He was survived by his widow, two sons and two daughters. The widow also died in the year 1977. The duaghters filed a suit for partition in this Court on 6th April, 1977 stating that the property in suit had been partitioned between the parties as per Plan attached with the plaint and a decree in terms thereof be passed. This court on 19th September, 1977 passed a decree for partition on the basis of the site plan filed along with the plaint. The property consists of four flats-two are on the ground floor and the remaining two are on the first floor. Portion in the tenancy of the respondent is one of the flats on the ground floor which fell to the share of Smt. Kamal Tanan in the partition. The other flat on the ground floor was occupied by the widow of the original owner Shri M. L. Malhotra. The other sister, namely, Mrs. Bhandula had started residing with her mother in the said flat after the death of Shri M. L. Malhotra. In the partition decree, the two flats on the first floor were allotted to each of the brothers. It is not disputed that both the brothers are settled abroad and have been living abroad for decades. At the time of the partition of the decree, one of the flats on the first floor was vacant which was occupied by Smt. Kamal Tanan and her husband. It was stated that they occupied it as licencees of their brother in whose share the flat fell on partition. At the time of the partition of the decree, one of the flats on the first floor was vacant which was occupied by Smt. Kamal Tanan and her husband. It was stated that they occupied it as licencees of their brother in whose share the flat fell on partition. The other flat on the first floor fell vacant in October 1977 which was also not let out thereafter and is stated to be in possession and control of the petitioner. Smt. Kamal Tanan, the original petitioner died sometime after the institution of the eviction petition. Her husband was brought on record as her legal representative. Sh. M. L. Vasishta, the tenant also died during the pendency of the eviction petition and his legal representatives were brought on record. ( 3 ) THE eviction petition was contested on various grounds. The Addl. Rent Controller rejected the challenge to the eviction petition on most of the grounds pleaded by the tenant. However, the eviction petition was dismissed on the ground that the same was not bona fide. In this behalf, the Addl. Rent Controller took into consideration several factors to non-suit the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the various grounds which the Addl. Rent Controller took into consideration to dismiss the eviction petition. Out of the five grounds discussed by the Additional Rent Controller to non-suit the petitioner, I find that the reasoning of the Addl. Rent Controller on four grounds is not sustainable as either it is contrary to record or it is contrary to law. However, the fifth ground alone is sufficient to non-suit the petitoner. I will take up these points one by one hereinafter. ( 4 ) FIRST point for consideration is the finding of the Addl. Rent Controller that the partition decree was not acted upon because the parties were directed to deposit the court fee for drawing up the partition decree by the High Court while passing the decree in the partition suit. The Addl Rent Controller found that the court fee was 1 not deposited and. therefore, the partition decree could not be given effect to. It appears that the words court fees" used in the order of the High Court by which the partition suit was decreed (exhibit AW-1/1) are by way of an oversight. The Addl Rent Controller found that the court fee was 1 not deposited and. therefore, the partition decree could not be given effect to. It appears that the words court fees" used in the order of the High Court by which the partition suit was decreed (exhibit AW-1/1) are by way of an oversight. After a partition decree is passed by court, the parties are required to file non-judicial stamp papers and not any court fee. The partition decree is to be drawn up on the non- judicial stamp papers of the requisite value which is filed by the parties to the suit. Exhibit P-4 which is a certified copy of the partition decree shows that the same has been engrossed on requisite stamp papers. Thus. the reasoning of the Addl. Rent Controller in this behalf is based on a factual mistake and is unsustainable. ( 5 ) SECONDLY, the Addi. Rent Controller took the view that the partition decree had to be got registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act and without registration it was ineffective. In the present case. the partition decree has not been registered. Therefore, it was held that the partition was in affect not there. This again is an erroneous view of the law. A reference to Section 17 (2) (vi) of the Registration Act shows that a partition decree which does not cover properties other than those which are subject matter of the suit. does not require registration. In the present case only the property in suit was involved and. therefore, registration of the partition decree was not required under the law. ( 6 ) NEXT it weighed with the Addl. Rent Controller that the four heirs of Shrim. L. Malhotra did not take any step for bifurcation of the property and its mutation in their individual names in the municipal records. On this basis it was found that the partition decree was not acted upon. This view is again not sustainable because firstly there is no requirement in law that parties must apply for separate mutation of their respective shares of a property in their individual names after a partition decree is passed. The mere fact of taking no step for bifurcation of the property for purposes of house tax in the municipal record does not render the partition ineffective. The Addl. The mere fact of taking no step for bifurcation of the property for purposes of house tax in the municipal record does not render the partition ineffective. The Addl. Rent Controller also took into consideration the fact that the husband of the other sister of Smt. Kamal Tanan had filed an affidavit in support of an application under Order 5 Rule 20 Civil Procedure Code which was. filed in the present proceedings. Because of the filing of the affidavit, the Addl. Rent Controller felt that there was in affect no partition and the parties were taking active interest in the entire property. In my view, this fact should not have prejudiced the mind of the Addl. Rent Controller against the plea of partition. The application under Order 5 Rule 20 Civil Procedure Code was signed by the petitioner herself. The affidavit of the husband of the other sister was filed because he was residing in the adjoining flat on the ground floor of the property and was the best person to depose about the fact that the tenant was residing in the adjoining flat and was avoiding service. In any case. this was a very minor issue and could not be taken into consideration to non-suit the petitioner. ( 7 ) THE last point which according to me is the most important fact of the case is that the partition appears to be a device to evict the tenant. The two flats on the first floor one of which was actually lying vacant and the other which fell vacant soon after the partition decree was passed were allotted in the partition to the two brothers who are settled abroad and have never shown any interest in the property. Actually one of the flats was being occupied by the petitioner Mrs. Kamal Tanan and her husband. The other flat on the first floor after it fell vacant was also in occupation and control of the petitioner and/or her husband. The question is if the original petitioner Smt. Kamal Tanan was in such urgent need of residential accommodation in Delhi in view of the impending retirement of her husband, why could the vacant flat on the first floor be not allotted to her in partition ? The vacant flat on the first floor actually was occupied by her and her husband. The vacant flat on the first floor actually was occupied by her and her husband. They say that they occupied thesame by way of courtesy shown by the brother who owns the flat. From the record, it appears that the two brothers have not shown any interest in the property ever. The order granting the partition decree (exhibit Aw-1/1 and the partition decree (exhibit P4) show that the two brohters who were defendants in the partition suit even did not put in appearance in the suit. I wondor if they filed any written statement. The suit and the partition decree appear to be the handi work of the two sisters. The suit was decreed as per the averments in the plaint. It is also clear from the evidence on record that the entire first floor falling to the share of the two brothers in the partition decree is being enjoyed by the petitioner (now by her husband ). The partition decree was passed in the year 1977. There is nothing to show nor any evidence has been brought on record to show that the brothers ever wanted their flats to be let out or dealt with in a particular manner. Whether they took any interest in the property in suit? ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to justify the allocation of the two flats on the ground floor to the two sisters by showing that one of the flats was given to the other sister Mrs. Bhandula for the reason that she was already residing therein along with the mother till the death of the mother and continued to do so thereafter. Therefore, one flat on the ground floor was allotted to the said sister. Secondly, he submits that the accommodation in the ground floor flats is more as compared to the flats on the first floor. Therefore, the sisters were at an advantage in getting the ground floor flats. Thirdly, it was submitted that one of the flats on the first floor was tenanted at the time of partition decree and, therefore, it is not correct to say that both the vacant flats on the first floor were allotted to the two brothers who are settled abroad. ( 9 ) THESE explanations are not convincing enough so as to pursuade me to hold that the eviction petition was bonafide. ( 9 ) THESE explanations are not convincing enough so as to pursuade me to hold that the eviction petition was bonafide. Fora petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act, it is of utmost importance that the petiton is bona fide. For all practical purposes, the entire first floor is available to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the accommodation in the first floor is not sufficient for his family. It is difficult to say that the petitioner did not know at the time of partition that the vacant accommodation at the first floor will be available to her for her occupation. The ground floor flat allotted to the petitioner in the partition suit is the only tenanted portion in the entire property. It appears that the mutual partition was enough to be the best device to evict the tenant. Only the petitioner could plead a case of personal bonafide need under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. The two brothers who are settled abroad could not plead such a case. Nor could the other sister institute an eviction petition under the said provision because she was already in occupation of accommodation on the ground floor. It is Smt. Kamal Tanan alone who could file a petition for eviction because she was living elsewhere and had no other property or residential accommodation in Delhi available to her on retirement of her husband. If the property was not partitioned, the way it was done, the eviction petition by Smt. Kamal Tanan would have failed on the ground that there was vacant accommodation available in the property in suit on the first floor to her. She being a co-owner of the property could always occupy the same. Therefore, the partition in the manner it was done was the only way to get rid of the tenant. The brothers have not shown any interest in the property. Smt. Kamal Tanan had best of both the worlds. She had accommodation enough for stay on first floor of the property. She could throw out the tenant through the present petition. ( 10 ) IN these circumstances. I am of the considered view tha tthe eviction petition in the present case is not bona fide and is. therefore, liable to be dismissed. While I do not agree with the entire reasoning of the Addl. She could throw out the tenant through the present petition. ( 10 ) IN these circumstances. I am of the considered view tha tthe eviction petition in the present case is not bona fide and is. therefore, liable to be dismissed. While I do not agree with the entire reasoning of the Addl. Rent Controller in dismissing the eviction petition, I agree with his conclusion that the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed. The eviction petition is accordingly ordered to be dismissed. However, in the facts of the case, there will be no order as to costs.