Delhi District Court
Courts vs Sh. Manzoor Elahi on 24 February, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH, ARC (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
E613/09
24.02.2011
Mst. Khatun Nisa
D/o Late Mohd. Saddiq
W/o Sh. Abdul Tasleem
R/o 3542, first floor, Katra Babar Beg,
Lal Kuan, Delhi110006.
...Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Manzoor Elahi
S/o Late Sh. Noor Elahi,
R/o 3542, first floor,
Katra Babar Beg,
Lal Kuan, Delhi110006.
Petition U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act.
1. Date of institution of the case : 04.11.2009
2. Date of Judgment Reserved : 17.02.2011
3. Date of Judgment pronounced : 24.02.2011
JUDGMENT
Vide this order I shall dispose of the petition u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25B of DRC Act. The brief facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner is coowner/colandlord in respect of the tenanted premises. The petitioner alongwith her sister Mst. Jannat Bi had purchased the property bearing No. 3542, Ward No. 7, Katra Babar Beg, Lal Kuan, Delhi from its previous owner and mother of the petitioner namely Mst. Kaneez Fatima 2 vide sale deed dated 24.01.1986. At the time of the purchase of the said property, the respondent was a tenant in one room measuring 18.6 ft X 9 at the first floor alongwith common latrine. By operation of law, the petitioner became the coowner/colandlord of the tenanted premises and the respondent became the tenant in respect of the tenanted premises. Subsequently, the respondent attorned and started paying the rent to the petitioner. The premises was initially let out by its previous owner to the respondent for residential purposes and till date the tenanted premises is being used by the respondent for residential purposes only. Petitioner has no equally reasonable alternative residential accommodation at Delhi or any where outside Delhi. The tenanted premises is the only premises, which is reasonably suitable accommodation for the petitioner as the same is situated just below the portion presently in possession of the petitioner at the second floor of the tenanted premises. The petitioner has one son, who is married and having one son. Infact, the son of the petitioner alongwith his family are residing in a small Kohtri measuring 9'X9' at the second floor of the premises bearing no. 3542, Katra Babar Beg, Lal Kuan, Delhi shown in red color in site plan at point 'A'.
2. It is further stated that the petitioner has an ailing mother, aged about 80 years, who is suffering from various ailments and is residing alongwith 3 the petitioner in the same room at the second floor of the premises. Mother of the petitioner is completely bed ridden, she requires as separate room for herself. Petitioner is also residing in the same room at the second floor of the property bearing no. 3542, Ward No. 7, Katra Babar Beg, Lal Kuan, Delhi shown in red color at point B in the site plan. The said room measuring 18.6 X 9.0 ft, where she lives alongwith her husband and ailing mother. As such the petitioner requires one separate and independent room for herself and her husband. The petitioner has four daughters, who are all married. All of them have twelve children and alongwith their respective husbands and respective children, the said daughters of the petitioner frequently visit their parental home i.e the house of the petitioner. On most of the time the said daughters alongwith children used to stay over night at their parental house. The petitioner also suffers from various ailments and she is under medical treatment in Panth Hospital, New Delhi and for that purpose, she requires a separate room for herself.
3. Leave to defend application u/s 25 B (4) of DRC Act filed by the respondent alongwith affidavit wherein he stated that he is tenant in the property from last more than 60 years even prior to the framing of present law. It is further stated that since the day of inception of tenancy, the respondent is doing the work of cutting the glasses, eye glasses etc. but now 4 respondent is about 80 years old and has lost his eye sight 60%, his sons are doing the same work, any his one son is doing tailoring work by bringing clothes at home and stitching and than giving it to parties hence property is being used for residential cum commercial purposes.
4. It is further stated that the property is situated in slum area and the petitioner has more than sufficient accommodation available to him lying vacant hence the petition for eviction filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. One roof which was in possession of respondent was taken by the petitioner with the assurance not to get the property vacated ever in life and that property is in use and occupation of the petitioner. No new member in the family of respondent has increased after purchase of property, rather all the four daughters of the petitioner have married and shifted to separate place and are residing with their respective families and there are two big rooms, measuring 15' X 16' and 15'X15' alongwith open court yard, open space, latrine and bath room at 3542, Katra Babar Beg, Lal Kuan, Delhi and two rooms open space, bath room over the roof of respondent. However, the petitioner has only one son married and four room, two open court yards, two latrines, two bath rooms etc. hence the accommodation is more than sufficient with the petitioner.
5
5. It is further stated that the petitioner has not filed the site plan much less the plan mentioning dimension hence the petition is vague and ambiguous as it is not clear that which portion petitioner wants to be evicted. The roof of second floor is also forming part of respondent's tenancy which petitoner has not stated to be of the respondent. Petitioner is not the owner of the property and is only landlord. A plot measuring about 200 sq. Yds is purchased by the petitioner in Okhla, New Delhi and after constructing the same it has been rented out to two new tenants i.e the ground floor portion while the entire property is entirely three storey building two storeys lying vacant in the area like New Delhi. Petitioner has purchased a flat in Nai Basti, Bara Hindu Rao and later on the same is sold at an enhanced rate to one Mohd. Mian.
6. Reply to the application of leave to defend alongwith counter affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner wherein she stated that the averments made in the affidavit of respondent are not only false and frivolous but the same are mischievous in nature which has been levelled only to create a false ground. The petitioner has never purchased even an inch of the property in Okhla or any where. All other averments made in the application are denied.
7. Rejoinder to the reply of leave to defend application filed on behalf of 6 the respondent. All the averments made in the reply to the leave to defend application were denied and the contents of the application for leave to defend application were reaffirmed.
8. Arguments heard from the Ld. Counsels of both the parties. Record perused and considered.
9. The present petition has been filed u/s 14 (1 ) (e) r/w section 25B of DRC Act and in order to succeed in such a petition, petitioner has to prove
(i). Ownership of the suit premises ; (ii). Purpose of letting; (iii) Alternative accommodation; and (iv) bonafide requirement;. Let the same be discussed in detail.
Ownership of the suit premises & Purpose of letting
10. The respondent has admitted that the petitioner is his landlord in respect of tenanted premises. However, the respondent has contended that the petitioner is not owner of the tenanted premises in question. It is well settled law that in an eviction petition under Delhi Rent Control Act, the landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership in respect of tenanted premiss. It was held in Rajender Kumar Sharma Vs. Leelawati "That a landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership as required under the 7 Transfer of Property Act. He is required that he is more than a tenant". So far the purpose of letting is concerned after the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union Of India III (2008) SLT 553, an eviction petition is maintainable in respect of the commercial purposes also. Alternative accommodation & Bonafide requirement
11. The respondent contended that the petitioner is having four rooms with two open court yards, two latrines, two bathrooms in the suit premises and the site plan filed by the petitioner is not correct and same is not according to the exact site of the property in question. The respondent further contended that the petitioner has purchased a plot measuring 200 sq. yards in Okhla, New Delhi and after the construction of the same it has been rented out to two tenants on the ground floor portion, while the rest of the property is lying vacant. It is further contended by the respondent that the petitioner has also purchased a flat in Nai Basti, Bada Hindu Rao and later on it was sold at a high price. On the other hand the petitioner has denied that she has four rooms with two open court yards, two latrine and two bathrooms. It is also denied that the petitioner has purchased a plot in Okhla, New Delhi and constructed it as alleged by the respondent.
12. The respondent has claimed that the petitioner is having four rooms, 8 two courtyards, two latrine and two bathroom in the suit premises on the second floor and on its terrace but the respondent has not filed any site plan to show where are these four rooms alongwith two court yards and two latrine and two bathrooms are situated in the property in question. The respondent has even not filed photographs of the property in question to show the four rooms in possession of the petitioner. The further contention of the respondent that the petitioner has purchased a plot at Okhla and constructed it and let out its first floor and remaining portion is lying vacant again has no substance in the absence of any documentary proof. It is well settled law that mere allegations regarding the alternative accommodation with a landlord is not sufficient in the absence of documentary proof. Every tenant can say that a landlord is having many accommodation but the same cannot be believed in the absence of documentary proof. In the present case the respondent has even not stated the municipal number of the property in Okhla, New Delhi as alleged by him.
13. The respondent has further contended that the number of family members of the petitioner has decreased after the marriage of her four daughters and the accommodation with the petitioner is the same as it was available with her on the date of purchase of the suit property. It is further contended that the petitioner has one married son who has only one child. 9 and there are four rooms in their possession. It is further contended that all the four daughters has already married therefore, petitioner does not need accommodation for them. It is further contended that the mother of the petitioner is not dependent upon her. During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has not given names of the persons dependent upon her and merely stated that seven persons are residing in the property. Ld. Counsel further submitted that it is also not stated how these persons dependent upon the petitioner. Ld. Counsel further argued that the coowner of the property in question not made a party, therefore, the petition is not maintainable.
14. As discussed above the respondent has failed to substantiate that the petitioner has four rooms in her possession. According to the petitioner, she has only two rooms in her possession. In one room the son of the petitioner is residing with his family and in another room the petitioner is residing with her husband and ailing mother. It is very difficult for three persons to live in one room. Similarly, one room is not sufficient for a husband, his wife and his child. At least they need two rooms. I do not find any force in the contention of the respondent that all the daughters of the petitioner are married, therefore, petitioner do not need any accommodation for them. We all know that after the marriage of daughters, the daughters used to visit 10 their parents home alongwith their husband and children and stay in the parents home. At least the parents need one room for their married daughters. The further contention of the respondent that the mother of the petitioner is not dependent upon her and the petitioner does not need any accommodation for her again has no substance. As the mother of the petitioner is 80 years old and residing with the petitioner, therefore, the need of the petitioner to have a separate room for her mother cannot be said a mere wish or desire to have a separate room for a mother. It is a bona fide need of the petitioner to have a separate room for her ailing mother. The petitioner has stated that she is living with her husband and mother in one room and a married son of the petitioner is also living with her family in one room. Hence, they are atleast six members in the family of the petitioner who are residing in the premises and the daughters of the petitioner also visited the petitioner alongwith their husband and children. Therefore, the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has not stated the name of person residing in the premises has no substance. So far the contention that coowner of the property in question was not made a party again has no substance. It is well settled law that a landlord can file a suit for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act and there is no need to make a coowner party.
11
15. Considering all this aspects I am of the considered view that the petitioner bona fidely needs the tenanted premises in question. The respondent has failed to raise any tribal issue. Hence the petitioner is entitled for an eviction order u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25B of DRC Act.
16. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to defend moved by the respondent is dismissed and an eviction order is passed u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25B of DRC Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises consisting of one room at the first floor of the tenanted premises bearing no. 3542, Ward No. 7, Katra Babar Beg, Lal Kuan, Delhi more specifically shown in red colour in site plan Ex. C1 (exhibited today while passing the order). However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall not be entitled to get the eviction order executed before expiry of 6 months running from today. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open court
on 24.02.2011) (Pritam Singh)
ARC/Central/Delhi
12