Delhi High Court
Mohd. Gulfam (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs & ... vs Mohd. Khalil (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs on 8 April, 2013
Author: Veena Birbal
Bench: Veena Birbal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on :08.04.2013
+ RC.REV. 67/2013
MOHD. GULFAM (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Maroof Ahmad, Advocate
-versus-
MOHD. KHALIL (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
JUDGMENT
VEENA BIRBAL, J.
1. By way of present revision petition challenge has been made to order dated 12.03.2012 whereby learned Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application of the petitioners in eviction petition No. E-28/2011 and eviction order has been passed against them under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
2. Background of the case is as under:-
An eviction petition was filed by the respondents herein under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) seeking eviction of the tenanted premises i.e., shop No.7914 situated at Mohalla Shaikhan, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi-6 on the ground of bona fide requirement. Upon service of summons, an application RC.REV. 67/2013 Page 1 of 4 seeking leave to defend the eviction petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners with affidavit of Mohd. Irfan contending therein that frivolous petition has been filed. It was also contended that there was no bona fide requirement of the respondents. Reply to the same was filed by respondents. After hearing the parties, the learned ARC was of the view that the petitioners have not raised any triable issue whereas the respondents have shown bona fide requirement of suit premises and accordingly, leave to defend application was dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2012.
3. The said order was challenged before this Court by filing Revision Petition No.400/2012 and the said Revision Petition was not contested on merits and some time was requested on behalf of the petitioners for vacating the suit premises and after some deliberations the respondents had agreed to give six months time in the said petition and accordingly the petition was disposed of vide order dated 04.09.2012. The said order is reproduced as under:-
"The petitioners are the tenants in respect of the premises being 7914 situated at Mohall Shaikhan, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi under the tenancy of the respondents. In the eviction petition that was filed by the respondents against the petitioners, leave to defend application was filed by the petitioners, which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.03.2012. The petitioners have assailed the said order in this petition.
Having heard the parties in person and also the counsel for the parties, the petitioner No. 1 Mohd. Irfan present for self as also on behalf of other petitioners i.e. legal heirs of late Mohd. Gulfam while not pressing the petition on merits sought some time for vacation of the premises. After some deliberations, the respondents have agreed to give around six months' time to petitioners to vacate the tenanted premises. The petitioner Mohd. Irfan undertakes to vacate the premises on or before 28.02.2013. Thus, while maintaining the order of eviction against the petitioners in respect of RC.REV. 67/2013 Page 2 of 4 the tenanted premises, it is ordered that the eviction order shall not be executable till 28.02.2013, but shall become executable forthwith thereafter in the event of the petitioners failing to vacate and deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the respondents. The petitioner present for self as also for other petitioners undertakes to pay user charges of the tenanted premises @ Rs. 120/- per month to the respondents till the vacation of the premises. He further undertakes that at the time of vacating the tenanted premises and giving peaceful and vacant possession thereof to the respondents, he shall clear all outstanding dues qua the tenanted premises, including electricity charges, water charges, etc. and shall not create any third party interest in the tenanted premises. The undertaking given on behalf of the petitioners is accepted.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the said Revision Petition the statement was made by only Mohd. Irfan. The petitioners herein did not instruct the said Mohd. Irfan to give any undertaking on their behalf to vacate the tenanted shop as such the undertaking given by him cannot be considered as undertaking on behalf of all the petitioners. It is stated that the impugned eviction order dated 12.03.2012 is illegal and triable issue was raised by the petitioners in leave to defend application as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. The impugned order by which the leave to defend application of the petitioner was rejected is dated 12.03.2012. As noted above, the said order was challenged by filing a revision petition No.400/2012. The memo of parties of the said revision petition bears the names of all the petitioners including the present petitioners. The said petition was disposed of on 04.09.2012 and time was given to petitioners to vacate the premises which has already expired on 28.02.2013. When the six months time was about to RC.REV. 67/2013 Page 3 of 4 expire the present petition is filed on 13.02.2013. It is not their stand that they have taken any action against Mohd. Irfan in this regard or the counsel who had appeared on behalf of the petitioners. It is only Mohd. Irfan who had filed leave to defend application before the ld.ARC along with his affidavit. All the petitioners including Mohd.Irfan are closely related to each other. All the petitioners including Mohd.Irfan inherited the tenancy of Abdul Qayam. Present petition is only an after-thought to gain some more time to vacate the tenanted premises. The second revision petition against the same impugned order is not maintainable. Accordingly the same is dismissed.
Dasti.
VEENA BIRBAL, J APRIL 08, 2013 srb RC.REV. 67/2013 Page 4 of 4