Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: structural changes in Sh. Nafees Ahmed vs Sh. Saiful Islam on 1 October, 2021Matching Fragments
3. It is stated by the petitioner that suit property was purchased by the petitioner from previous owner namely Late Sh. Sheikh Mohd. Jaan vide sale deed dated 05.06.2000 and the same was registered on 14.06.2000 before the concerned Sub-Registrar, Delhi. It is further stated that the respondent is the tenant in respect of one room and kitchen at first floor in above said property which is shown in red colour in the site plan. The respondent made addition/alterations and structural changes in the tenanted premises without the consent of the petitioner and he has constructed a bathroom on the roof of the first floor and covered the open roof/space by constructed a room illegally which is shown in green colour in the site plan.
6. The petitioner has prayed that eviction order may be passed in respect of the tenanted premises in terms of section 14 (1) (a)(c) & (j) of the Delhi //4// Rent Control Act.
Respondent's case
7. Upon being served with the summons, respondent filed written statement therein denying the petitioner's case. It is stated that the site plan of the suit property is incorrect and not according to the tenanted premises. It is further stated that the petitioner is not the owner of the property in question and the present petition is filed malafidely. It is further stated that the respondent is continuously depositing the rent through DR No.121/2012 and DR No.09/2013 for the period of 1 st May, 2009 to 30th April 2012 and also for the period of 01.05.2012 to 31.12.2013 in the Court of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Ld. ARC, Delhi. It is further stated that the notice dated 06.02.2012 as mentioned by the petitioner was not served upon the respondent. It is further stated that the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent for non-payment of rent and misuse of the property in question and also for addition and alteration in the tenanted premises are wrong. It is further stated that no addition, alteration or structural changes has been made by the respondent nor have constructed any bathroom on the roof of the first floor or covered the open roof/space by constructed a room illegally. The tenancy of //5// the respondent is in the same position as it was let out to him on rent from previous owner Sh. Sheikh Mohd. Jaan.
Petitioner's case as per Replication
8. Petitioner filed the replication wherein the averments of the eviction petition were reiterated and reaffirmed and those of the written statement were denied as false and incorrect. It is further stated that the respondent has filed wrong site plan with some ulterior motive. It is further stated that petitioner is the lawful and exclusive owner of the suit property. It is further stated that respondent has made additions/alterations and structural changes in the tenanted premises without the consent of the petitioner. Evidence led by the parties
(v) Court must determine the nature, character of the construction and the extent to which they make changes in the structure of the premises having //16// regard to the purpose for which the premises have been let out;
(vi) landlord has to prove it by cogent evidence and wherever necessary expert witness should be examined;
(vii) an eviction order under Clause (j) could be passed if the tenant has carried out such additions or alterations and structural changes in the tenancy premises which had brought about material impairment in the value and utility of premises;