QAMAR NISHA Vs. HAMIDA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fade of the case are that the Respondent/Landlady had filed a Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,(hereinafter referred to as DRC Act). In the Petition itself it had been clarified that the premises demised to the Petitioner/Tenant was the First Floor of House No. 492, Ward No.11, Gali Matia Mahal, Delhi, as shown in the 'red' in the Site Plan attached to the Petition. The Tenant, however, allegedly carried out unauthorised construction on the roof of the First Floor as shown in 'blue'in the Site Plan. Consequently, eviction was sought in respect of the entire property. It also appears that a civil suit for Permanent Injunction had been filed by the Landlady in respect of the unauthorised and illegal construction being carried out on the roof of the First Floor. A Local Commissioner had been appointed by the Court, who has submitted his Report to the effect that a room covered by Tarpaulin was in existence. A temporary injunction was, thereupon issued against the Tenant.

(2.) A Written Statement was filed in the Eviction proceedings in which the Tenant had denied the ownership of the Landlady and had asserted that she had alternate accommodation available with her; that the premises had not been let for residential purposes only; and that there were no bona fide requirement of the landlady. It will be seen from the above that almost every aspect of the Petition had been traversed by.the Tenant. When the case was taken up for the recording of Petitioner's evidence, the parties entered into a settlement. The statement of the Counsel for the Tenant was recorded as well as the presence of the son of the Tenant. On the instructions of the Tenant, it was admitted that the Landlady is the owner of the property and that the demised premise was a Balkhana (as shown in 'red' in the Site Plan Ext.P-1) on the First Floor. It was also admitted that the premises had been let for residential purposes only, and that they were needed bona fide by the Landlady for her residence as well as for the residence of the family members dependent upon her. It was also admitted on behalf of the Tenant that the Landlady has no other reasonably suitable accommodation available to her. It was further stated that the Tenant had no objection in case an eviction order was passed against him. It was In these circumstances, that It was agreed upon by the parties that the Tenant would vacate the premises on or before 30.6.1999. The Statement of the Attorney of the Landlady was also recorded, consenting to the above-mentioned arrangement. The Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as ARC) has specifically mentioned that he was satisfied that the ingredients of section 14(1)(e) had been made out. An eviction order was passed by him and in accordance with the compromise, granting time to the Tenant upto 30.6.1999 to vacate the property.

(3.) After enjoying virtually the entire period permitted to the Tenant to vacate the premises, an application for Review was filed by the Tenant. This was disposed off by the order dated 15/4/1999 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. He held that the statement made by the Advocate on behalf of the Tenant was binding on the Tenant. It appears that this order was assailed upto the High Court, which dismissed the Petition in terms of its Order dated 14/05/1999.