HAJI YUSUF SIDDIQUI Vs. MOHD WASEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned judgment is dated 14.2.2009; application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend had been dismissed; eviction petition filed the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control (hereinafter referred to as the DRCA) had been decreed. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement; he has claimed himself to the owner of the suit premises; the aforenoted suit premises are property no.85/1, Gali No.2, Jaffrabad, Delhi. The petitioners have become the owners by virtue of a oral gift deed dated 1.6.1988 bequeathed to them by their grandmother Laiq-un-nissa; pursuant to this oral gift deed which had bequeathed the disputed property to them an Award dated 19.11.1988 had followed which was made a Rule of the Court on 23.01.1989; the petitioner claimed the status of owner/landlord in respect of the aforenoted premises; contention was that that his family consists of himself; he is a bachelor; petitioner no.2 is also of a marriageable age; the mother of the petitioners no.1 and 2 is also dependent upon them who live with them. Petitioner no.1 wants to start a new business from the suit premises; presently he is doing business of embroidery from the only room which is in their occupation; suit premises are accordingly required by him as there is an acute paucity of accommodation. They are in occupation of only one room; it has no kitchen, bathroom; they have no dining/ drawing room or place of worship. The tenant himself has a large house i.e. House No.64/2, Gali No.3, Jafrabad, Delhi which include a big hall and two rooms on the ground floor, three rooms, kitchen bathroom, courtyard on first floor and one room and open courtyard on the second floor. Eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement had accordingly been filed.

(2.) Leave to defend was filed. Three main grounds have been raised; contention is that the gift deed was only an oral bequeath; it does not confer any valid legal title upon the petitioners. It is, however, not disputed that the property was originally owned by the grandmother of the petitioners and after the oral gift deed dated 01.6.1988 an Award dated 19.11.1983 was passed which was made into a Rule of Court on 23.1.1989; contention of the tenant being that this does not give ownership right to the petitioners.

(3.) This submission of the petitioner is wholly bereft of merit. The concept of ownership as envisaged in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA is not the same as enjoined in proceedings in a title suit. There is no dispute to the fact that the disputed premises were originally owned by grandmother of the petitioners. The oral gift deed had been created in favour of the grandchildren and on the basis of this oral gift deed an Award had been passed which had become the Rule of Court; this was made into a Rule of Court by a competent court of law. This decree has attained a finality; it has not been the subject matter of challenge before any court. This was thus a valid bequeath of rights in the property by the grandmother Laiq-un-nissa in favour of her grandchildren i.e. the present petitioners. It is also not the case of the tenant that he recognizes any other person as his landlord.