SIRAJ KHAN Vs. MOHD AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED judgment is dated 27.09.2011 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord Mohd. Ahmed seeking eviction of his tenant Siraj Khan under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed in his favour. The summary procedure contained in Section 25-B of the DRCA had been adverted to; the application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant had been dismissed.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement. The premises in dispute is shop bearing No. 1641, ground floor, Gali Andheri, Ward No. IX, Gali Andheri, Pahari Bhojja, Jama Masjid, Delhi. Contention of the petitioner is that his parents had purchased this property vide a registered sale deed dated 12.08.1992; after the death of his parents i.e. on 07.02.2002 and 25.07.2007 respectively, their legal heirs inherited this property which included the petitioner and his four other siblings; all the aforenoted siblings are minors and they are dependent upon the present petitioner for all purposes; all of them are joint owners of this property. Further contention is that the petitioner was having no source of income; he was earning a meager amount by way of running a telephone booth in the residential portion of his premises; his brother Osama aged around 15 years is not doing anything and he could complete his studies because of paucity of funds; present premises which is a shop are required by both the petitioners in order that they can earn a livelihood for themselves. Further contention is that their sister Ms. Sara aged 17 years has also not been able to continue with her studies because of financial constraint and the premises are required by her as well for setting up a business for herself. Further contention of the petitioners is that the apart from the present shop which has been tenanted out to the petitioners, there are two other shops on the ground floor one of which has been tenanted out to Furqan and other is with the other tenant Chand; they are old tenants. Further contention being reiterated that the petitioner is doing job work of telephone booth in a small portion of the ground floor; present premises are required bonafide by him and his brother for carrying out a business to fend for themselves. Site plan has been filed along with eviction petition and is a part of the record.

(3.) OWNERSHIP and locus-standi of the petitioner to file eviction petition has however not been disputed. Admittedly the parents of the petitioner were the owners of this property which they have purchased by way of registered sale deed dated 12.08.1992; it is also not in dispute that a co-owner can maintain an eviction petition in the absence of other co-owner.