SHARMILA BANERJEE LIVINGSTON Vs. MOHD. ABBAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition u/S 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short "the Act"), assailing the order dated 06.01.2012 passed by the Ld. ARC, Saket Courts, Delhi, whereby the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, was dismissed and an eviction order was passed.

(2.) The petitioner is a tenant with respect to one living room/drawing room, two bedrooms, one kitchen, two toilets and some utility space on the ground floor in property bearing No. C-17, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi-110023 (hereinafter referred to as "the tenanted premises"). The property of which the tenanted premises form a part was said to be sold to late Mohd. Shahid through an agreement to sell and a registered general power of attorney in the year 1994. At the time of purchase, the ground floor was occupied by tenant late Brojendra Nath Bannerjee, who died in the year 2001 and since that time, his daughter, the petitioner herein has been residing on the first floor. Late Mohd. Shahid expired on 15.05.2004 intestate leaving behind the respondents as his legal heirs. The respondent nos. 4 and 9 are the wives of late Mohd. Shahid, respondents No 1 to 3 and 8 are his four sons and respondents 5 to 7 are his daughters. Among them, only nos. 8 and 9 have their own residential houses in Delhi. Respondent No. 7 lives with her husband in Delhi. An eviction petition was filed on 15.09.2009 on the ground that the tenanted premises was bonafidely required by respondents No.1 to 6 for their residential purpose. It was submitted that the respondents are running a family business comprising of many companies/firms/outlets/factories in Delhi and Moradabad (Uttar Pradesh). Respondent No 1 has five sons, two are in business and three are pursuing their studies. It was averred that he, his wife and eldest son Mohd. Ahmar Abbas frequently visit Delhi for business, but are unable to stay continuously due to lack of accommodation and that they have to share space with respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9. It was further submitted that respondent No 2 is a U.S citizen and is now a PIO card holder and is living in India in a rented accommodation in Defence Colony, Delhi for the past year, paying a monthly rent of Rs 99,000/-. He has been visiting India regularly to look after the family business along with his brothers. He has a wife, two sons and one daughter. His two sons also wished to stay in India but due to lack of accommodation cannot do so. Respondent No 3 is also a U.S citizen who holds a PIO card and has been living in India for the past three to four years in a rented accommodation in Gurgaon. He and his wife help in looking after the family business in Delhi. Further, the son of the respondent no. 3, being mentally challenged, is taking treatment in Delhi and needs to be admitted in a special education programme in Delhi. He also has three minor daughters, who require care. He also does not have any other property in Delhi. Similarly, respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 have no separate accommodation of their own in Delhi.

(3.) It was further stated that the property in question comprises of three floors being ground, first and second floors. Out of these three floors, the first floor is in possession of the respondents in which respondent nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 stay for short durations during their business trips to Delhi. The second floor which was previously occupied by a tenant namely Rahat Hasmi also came in the possession of the respondents in the year 2009. This premises is also used by respondent nos. 1, 4 and 6 and their family members whenever they visit Delhi. It has been submitted that these premises are not sufficient for the requirements of the large family of respondent nos. 1 to 6. Thus the tenanted premises was bonafidely required by the respondents for residential purposes.