ZAHIDA BEGUM Vs. AKHTAR ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has impugned the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2002 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlady Smt. Zahida Begum seeking eviction of her tenant from the suit premises (i.e. House No. 6777, Ahata Kidara, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi) which had been tenanted out to him at a monthly rent of Rs. 4/- had been dismissed.

(2.) Record shows that the landlady claims herself to be the owner of the aforenoted premises; the premises have been described in the site plan annexed alognwith the eviction petition which shows that the premises comprise of one room with a tirpal and a WC; it is bounded by galies on two sides; it bears property No. 6777, Ahata Kidara, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. The ground for eviction is the grounds as contained in Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA); contention is that presently she is living in a house No. 6322, Gali Hazi Amit Bux, Qasabpura, Delhi which is owned by her father-in-law Mohd. Rafiq and the accommodation in this house consists of one room, one courtyard, kitchen, bathroom and latrine on the ground floor; this property is owned by her father in law; she alongwith her husband, three sons and one daughter (now married), her father-in-law and mother-in-law are residing in the property owned by her father-in-law which is insufficient; they have no other accommodation; the present tenanted premises is bonafidely required by her for her aforenoted need.

(3.) In the written statement, this contention was disputed. Oral and documentary evidence had been led. The petitioner had examined herself as the sole witness; she had reiterated her averments made in the eviction petition; in her cross-examination, she had admitted that the property of her father-in-law is bearing 6322, Gali Hazi Amit Bux, Qasabpura, Delhi and has only ground floor wherein the accommodation consists of one room, one courtyard, kitchen, bathroom and latrine and there is no other built up accommodation in that house. In a further part of the cross-examination she has admitted that this building is a three-storied building; in another part she has stated that this building is a two-storied building; her contention being that only the ground floor which is in occupation of her father-in-law and the first floor is in possession of the younger brother of her father-in- law i.e. Alio-uddin; second floor is in possession of another younger brother of her father in law i.e. namely Mohd. Shamimand the third floor is in occupation of yet another brother i.e. Hazi Babu; reiterating her stand in the cross-examination that this is in fact a three-storied structure. Admittedly, she has not filed site plain of the property where she was residing; she had denied the suggestion that this property comprises of 8 to 10 rooms.