MUMTAZ BEGUM AND ORS. Vs. MOHD. KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 have been preferred by the landlords against the order dated 21st February, 2005 of the Addl. Rent Controller dismissing the two petitions for eviction, both under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act preferred by the landlords against two tenants, both in different portions of property No. 1909, Mohalla Qubaristan, Turkman Gate, Delhi. The Addl. Rent Controller held the petitioners to be owner/landlords of the premises in the tenancy of the tenants; further held the premises to have been let out to the tenants for residential purposes only, negated the plea of the tenant in RCR No. 78 -79/2005 of the petition for eviction being not with respect to the entire premises in his tenancy.

(2.) HOWEVER , the petition for eviction subject matter of RCR No. 78 -79/2005 was dismissed inter alia on the ground of the landlords having not given any plausible explanation for non production of the title deeds of property No. 2299, Chhatta Momgran, Turkman Gate, Delhi, which the tenant contended to be belonging to the petitioner No. 2 Fazle Azim and the petitioners claimed to be belonging to wife of petitioner No. 2 Fazle Azim and which would have been the best evidence to show that the property belonged not to the petitioner No. 2 but to his wife. Qua the said property, it was also held that the landlords had not produced the site plan of the property to disclose the extent of the accommodation therein; it was held that when the landlords had filed site plans of the other accommodations/properties which the tenant had averred to be alternative suitable accommodation for the landlords, there was no reason for not producing the site plan of the said property. The other reason for dismissal of the eviction petition subject matter of RCR No. 78 -79/2005 was qua property No. 2384, Jangli Kuan, Gali Shahbuddin, Kucha Pandit, Delhi. It was the case of the tenant that the said property belonged to the petitioner No. 1 Mumtaz Begum; it was the case of the landlords that the same was occupied by the mother of the petitioner No. 1 and is very small and in a dilapidated condition and not suitable for the residence of the landlords. The Addl. Rent Controller held that the onus was on the landlords to prove that the said property was not suitable for them and the landlords had not filed any site plan in respect of the said property to show the accommodation therein or any document to show as to how the same was not suitable for the landlords.

(3.) THE petition for eviction subject matter of RCR 97 -98/2005 was dismissed only for the reason of property No. 2384, Jangli Kuan, Gali Shahbuddin, Kucha Pandit, Delhi (supra). It was held that the landlords had failed to prove the extent of accommodation therein. Even though the tenant in petition for eviction subject matter of RCR No. 97 -98/2005 had also set up a case of alternative accommodation in property No. 2299, Chhatta Momgran, Turkman Gate, Delhi being available to the landlords (and which formed one of the two grounds on which the other petition for eviction was dismissed) but the Rent Controller vis a vis the said petition for eviction held proved that the said property belonged to Smt. Shaista Begum wife of petitioner No. 2. It was so held owing to the admissions in the suggestions given by the counsel for the tenant in the said petition for eviction to the petitioner No. 2 appearing as his own witnesses. The counsel for the tenant in the said petition for eviction had in the cross examination of the petitioner No. 2 suggested that the said property had been purchased by the petitioner No. 2 in the name of his wife. The said suggestion was denied by the petitioner No. 2. The Rent Controller however held that from the said suggestion it stood admitted that the property was registered in the name of Smt. Shaista Begum and thus could not be held to be alternative suitable accommodation available to the petitioners.