YAMEEN Vs. SALEEM KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" only) is directed against an order dated 7th May, 2001 passed by the Additional Rent Controller in Petition No.209/2000 dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to defend and allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondents under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25 B of the Act.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the respondents who are brother and sister respectively filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25 B of the Act against the petitioner-tenant alleging that their rather late Munawar Khan was the owner of House No.3135, Gali Azizuddin Vakil, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi. After the death or their rather, they had inherited the aforesaid property wherein the petitioner was a tenant in respect of one room and open space in front thereof. The premises were let out for residential purposes. The respondents submitted that the said premises were required by them bonafide for their residence and the residence of their family member a and as such, the petition.

(3.) The petitioner-tenant moved an application for leave to defend denying that the respondents were the owners- landlords of the premises in question. He also raised objection to the non-impleadment or Mohd. Naseem Khan, brother of the respondents-landlords who was stated to be a co-owner. It was also pleaded that the property in question was a evacuee property and deceased Munawar Khan was merely a landlord who had inducted the petitioner in suit premises in November, 1984 for commercial purposes. It was stated that since the inception of the tenancy, the petitioner was using the premises in question for his business purposes and was residing in another portion with his brother Mohd. Saleem, It was also pleaded that the respondents-landlords did not require the premises in question for their bonafide needs as they had other alternative accommodations including the entire first floor of property No.3134 which was an adjoining building. It was stated that the respondents were intending to convert the entire building into a multi storey building and had contacted some builder even for the said purpose.