SYED MOHAMMED MAIN NIZAMI (DECEASED) REPRESENTED BY SYED MAANZOOR NIZAMI AND ORS. Vs. QASIMA KHATOON AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order impugned is the order dated 10.4.2003 wherein the eviction petition filed by the landlord (Syed Mohd. Mia Nizami) through his legal representatives under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the DRCA) had been dismissed. This was after a full trial.

(2.) In the eviction petition, it has been averred that the premises i.e. the municipal No. 107 (old), 67 -68 (new), Basti Hazarat Nizamuddin, New Delhi has been tenanted out to the tenant by the landlord Sayed Mohd. Mia Nizami who is also the owner of the suit premises. The premises were residential in nature and comprised of one big room (hall), two small rooms, two kothris, one tin shed, one kitchen, bath, latrine and courtyard as depicted in red colour in the site plan. Rate of rent was Rs. 17/ - per month which was exclusive of water, electricity and house tax charges. Terms of tenancy were oral. In the grounds for eviction, it has been pleaded that the Petitioner being the owner and landlord of the premises requires the suit property bonafide for his own residence and his family members who are dependent upon him; he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. Family of the Petitioner comprises of himself, his wife six major sons; eldest of whom is married having two children; the second son is also married and has four children; so also another son has two children; Petitioner has six daughters and five of whom reside with the Petitioner with their husbands and children. The present accommodation available for his family members is insufficient. He has only five rooms in House No. 55, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi which is not sufficient (as depicted in green colour in the site plan). Present petition has accordingly been filed.

(3.) In the written statement, these facts were disputed. It is denied that the Petitioner is the owner and the landlord of the said premises. Contention was that the premises had been let out for commercial and residential purpose; the plea of bonafide requirement is not available to him; he has mis -led the court by giving a wrong number of his family members; the family members as averred by the Petitioner are not dependent upon him; they all are independent; it was contended that the Petitioner in fact has 12 rooms which are more than sufficient for his living requirements. The Petitioner has concealed this fact and has wrongly stated that he has five rooms only; no cause of action has arisen in favour of the Petitioner.