IQRAMULLAH Vs. MOHD SUBHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 01.08.2011 which has dismissed the review petition seeking review of the order dated 28.08.2010.

(2.) Vide order dated 28.08.2010 the application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant in a petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been dismissed. The review petition was dismissed vide the impugned order. The only ground taken in the review petition was that the property No. 29 - A, Braham Puri in fact comprises of two properties; this has not been correctly appreciated by the ARC; property No. 29 - A is in fact located in gali No. 21 as also in gali No. 22. This is an error which is apparent on the face of the record for which a review had been sought for which was dismissed.

(3.) Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA. Application for leave to defend had been filed by the tenant; his contention was that the petitioners are enjoying two more properties i.e. property No. 29 - A which is located in gali No. 21 as also in gali No. 22, Braham Puri, Delhi East; need of the petitioners cannot be said to be bonafide; it had also been contended that petitioners have also inherited other properties (details of which have been given in para 6 of the application for leave to defend). These averments made in para 6 of the application for leave to defend had been vehemently denied; it was contended that the property No. 29 - A, Braham Puri, is in fact a single property and is located in gali No. 22 ; part of it faces the backside of gali No. 21 and the other portion is on the front side which is in gali No. 22; 23 persons are residing in that property; bona fide requirement of the landlord is evident. The other properties are also tenanted out and are the subject matter of separate proceedings. In the grounds for review, it had been contended in sub - para 'C' of the review petition that property No. 652, Chandni Mahal, Delhi - 110006 which was under possession of the tenant Rias has since been vacated; in the corresponding para of the reply to this review petition it had been submitted by the landlord that this shop which was in possession of Rias has since been decreed on the ground of bona fide requirement in favour of Mohd. Adil and not petitioner No. 1; Mohd. Adil was the landlord of those premises; bona fide requirement of the petitioners remained un - effected.