ZULFIQUAR HUSSAIN Vs. HASSAN FATIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') impugns the order and judgment dated 24.3.2012, whereby the eviction petition being 264/2008, filed by the respondent, seeking eviction of the petitioner, was allowed, and consequently, the eviction order was passed against the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioners are the tenants under the respondent in respect of one room, one store, latrine, kitchen, bath and open courtyard in property bearing No. 18, Ganesh Park, Rashid Market, Delhi. It is however alleged by the respondent/landlord that the petitioners have also constructed one room unauthorizedly in the suit premises. The eviction of the petitioners was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the respondent for herself and her family members. The respondent's case is that she is in possession of premises comprising of two rooms, one verandah, one scooter garage and one small kitchen, bath and latrine in property No. 38, Hathi Khana, Bahadur Garh Road, Delhi, and which accommodation is highly insufficient for her and her family members. Her family members consisted of herself, two married sons, their wives and children and one unmarried son aged about 28 years. The petitioner also has two married daughters, out of whom, one daughter alongwith her daughter aged 18 years, is also residing with her. It is averred that the married daughters also visit and stay with her along with her family. It is averred that she does not have any drawing room, dining room, guest room, bathroom, study room, and therefore, now, she intends to shift to the suit premises along with her younger son.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record and the impugned judgment. On being asked, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. He, however, made all those submissions which were made before the ARC, and which have been considered by him. His main submission is that the present accommodation with the respondent in property No. 38, Hathi Khana, Bahadur Garh Road comprised of six rooms on the ground floor, and which is quite sufficient for the respondent and her family members. This is also his submission that the suit premises being situated at far away place, and being a small room only, was not at all useable for the residence of the respondent for herself or for her any other family member. Taking me through the site plan of property No. 38, Hathi Khana, Bahadur Garh Road, the learned counsel tried to demonstrate that the accommodation shown as scooter garage and office, could be used for residence by the respondent.