(1) Petitioner has assailed the order of the learned Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC) dated 24th July, 1996, primarily on the ground, that the learned Arc File disposing of the petition ignored the facts pleaded in para 18(a) of the petition read with the averments made in the replication wherein the essential ingredients of section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Drc Act) had been specifically pleaded. To appreciate thµe contentions raised by the petitioner lets ha look at the relevants facts of the case. These are that one Moti Ram Filed a petition of eviction against the respondent on the ground of his bonafide requirement. He needed the premises for himself and for his two sons who were dependent on him for the purpose of their residence. During the pendency of the proceedings Moti Ram died. By virtue of the order of this Court dated 25th November, 1994 legal heirs were ordered to be brought on record, however, liberty was given to the tenant to raise’ any objection with regard to the lack of pleading essential ingredients if any, required to be imp leaded in order to succeed in a petition under Section 14(l)(e) of the Drc Act. All the legal heirs were brought on record. BonaFide requirement was that of Ajay Kumar and Rajesh Kumar, the two sons of deceased Moti Ram. They all were living at the time of Filing the petition at house No. 1518-19, Gali Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi which house according to the petition vested with his eldest son Vijay Kumar.
(2) Admittedly, no amendments were sought in the petition after the order was passed by this Court on 25th November, 1994. Petitioners felt that pleadings and in particular para 18(a) of the petition sufficiently covered all the necessary ingredients of Section 14(l)(e) of Drc Act as required be pleaded. It was clearly spell out in para 18(a) of the petition read with the replication that their father had in no uncertain words pleaded that the accommodation was required for himself and for the two sons who were dependent upon him for their residence. In replication it was made clear that those two sons were dependent upon Moti Ram for the purpose of their residence. In para 18(a) of the petition it has been mentioned that those two sons of Moti Ram had no other accommodation available in Delhi except the premise in question. Treating that these ingredients were sufficient to cover their case under Section 14(l)(e) of the Drc Act, they did not ask for amendment of the petition. The Trial Court, to my mind, erred in concluding that the pleadings lack essential ingredients of seeking eviction under Section 14(l)(e). Shri Moti Ram appearing as his own witness proved the will as Ex. AW-1/1. By virtue of this will the house bearing No. 1518-19, Gali Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi was bequeathed in favour of Vijay Kumar. Therefore, it was wrong on the part of the Trial Court to conclude that house bearing No. 1518-19, Gali Sita.Ram Bazar, Delhi in which the petitioners had no title was an alternative accommodation available to them. Since petitioners had no right, title or interest in that property at Sita Ram Bazar hence Court below could not deprive the petitioners for seeking eviction of the suit premises nor sufficiency or insufficiency of accommodation at Sita Ram Bazar had any relevance. The observations of the learned Arc in this regard are against the facts proved on record. Similarly, the learned Arc, to my mind, fell in grave error when he ignored the testimony of Moti Ram stated that neither he nor his two sons Ajay Kumar and Rajesh Kumar had any other suitable accommodation available in Delhi. The reason given by the Trial Court for ignoring this part of Moti Ram’s evidence appears to be based on misconception fact that this part of his evidence was beyond pleadings. It appears that the learned Arc did not care to read para 18(a) of the petition properly nor bothered to read the replication which formed part of the pleadings. In para 18(a) of the petition as well as in the replication it was made absolutely clear that Moti Ram’s two sons namely Ajay Kumar and Rajesh Kumar were dependent upon him for the purpose of residence. They had no other accommodation available in Delhi except this house. Contention of Mr. O.P.Khanna, counsel respondents that the word “suitable accommodation” has not been specifically mentioned. Hence in the absence of mentioning the word “suitable”, the petition lacked better particulars. To my mind, this argument has no force. Suffice it to say, that when the petitioners in no uncertain words pleaded that they did not have any other accommodation suitable in Delhi there was. no need to say “suitable”. Once a person is without accommodation, there is no need for him to say “no suitable accommodation available”. Such pleadings are required if a person is in possession of some accommodation but that is not suitable for his living, not when he is without any sort of accommodation. The accommodation at Sita Ram Bazar is no accommodation for the petitioners as they have no right over the same. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court that the petition lacked essential ingredients of Section 14(l)(e) of Drc Act is neither based on the pleadings of the parties nor on the evidence.
(3) Further contention of Mr. O.P.Khanna, counsel for the respondent that Ajay Kumar and Rajesh Kumar, sons of late Moti Ram ought to have come into witness box has no force because Moti Ram had appeared. He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination still his statement to the effect that his two sons were dependent upon him for the purpose of their residence could not be dislodged nor rebutted. Once it was proved on record that they had no accommodation and needed the suit premises for their residence, in that case it was not necessary for Rajesh Kumar or for that matter Ajay Kumar to appear in the witness box and re-approve the same facts. It is surprising as to how the Trial Court concluded that Vijay Kumar was seeking eviction. The mere fact that he was imp leaded as legal heir of deceased Moti Ram by itself did not mean that he was also seeking eviction. In paral8(a) of the petition it has been categorically stated that the eviction was sought only for two sons of Moti Ram, namely, Rajesh Kumar and Ajay Kumar. It was no one’s case that eviction was sought for Vijay Kumar also. The contention of Mr. Khanna that since Vijay Kumar was imp leaded as petitioner hence eviction also was sought for him. To my mind, by mere impleading the legal heir in order to avoid any technical objection subsequently by itself does not mean that petitioner also sought for the eviction. He was simply imp leaded being the legal heir of the deceased and not because he also needed this accommodation. Hence, the observations of the learned Arc in this regard are misconceived and against the record.
(4) For the reasons stated above the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly set aside. Degree of eviction is accordingly passed. Statutory time of six months is granted to the respondent to vacate the premises in question which is bonafide required by the petitioners for their residence.