MOBIN Vs. KAUSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED judgment dated 17.01.2011 has decreed the eviction petition filed by the landlord. 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 Kausar against her tenant Mobin; premises is a shop being a part of house No.410, Gali no.19, Main Jafrabad, Delhi; it was an oral tenancy; rate of rent was Rs. 500/- per month excluding other charges. Petitioner claims herself to be the absolute owner of the suit property; her contention is that she has three sons and two daughters; elder son Faimuddin aged about 38 years, having two children is doing the sale of jackets and coolers at Nala, Main Road, Jafrabad, Delhi; this is a THIYA and the MCD officials at any time come to his working place and remove his THIYA; this is only the business space available with the elder son of the petitioner and the entire family is surviving on this business; her second son Suhaib is also working with his elder brother; he is also married and has one child; her third son Salman is studying; husband of the petitioner is a heart patient. The entire family expenses are being borne out by Faimuddin; there is no other source of income available with the family of the petitioner except the present business which is being carried out by the two sons of the petitioner and which at a temporary place. The present premises i..e the tenanted shop is required bonafide by the petitioner for the use of the business purpose of her two sons. Eviction petition was accordingly filed.

(3.) RECORD has been perused. The documents placed on record i.e. the sale deed dated 16.7.1969 in favour of father-in-law of the petitioner Maqbool Khan shows that a piece of land measuring 100 sq. yards in Khasra No.92, Village Jazafrabad, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi-63 had been purchased by Maqbool Khan. He had died intestate; vide relinquishment deed dated 25.9.1991 the legal heirs of late Maqbool Khan had relinquished their shares in favour of Fakhruddin who is the younger son of Maqbool Khan. A GPA dated 30.8.2000 has been executed by Fakhruddin qua the property measuring 50 sq. yards (out of 100 sq. yards) of the aforenoted property; 15 sq.yards of land has since been demolished by the MCD and the present land which is now owned by the petitioner is only 35 sq. yards. This has been explained in the aforenoted documentary evidence. The suit shop with the tenant is measuring approximately 48 sq. feet which is clear from the site plan; the identity of the suit shop is also not in dispute; two rent receipts issued by Samsuddin (husband of the present petitioner) in favour of the landlady shows that the petitioner has in fact attorned to the landlady; he is paying rent to her; thus in the aforenoted factual scenario the trial court had rightly drawn the conclusion that the status of the landlord/owner is prima facie established. A petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA is even otherwise not a title suit; a prima facie right/title of the landlord has to be shown; a mere bald denial by the landlord denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and questioning the ownership of the landlord is meaningless.