GHAUSE MIAN Vs. SHAMIM KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred under section 25 B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred as 'Act') assailing the judgment and order dated 24.03.2012 passed by Ld A.R.C. whereby the Ld. ARC dismissed the application for leave to defend filed by the petitioner to contest the eviction petition no. E-14/2011. Respondents filed the said eviction petition u/s 14(1)(e) of the Act on the ground of bonafide requirement in respect of one shop at the ground floor of the property bearing no. 231 situated near Quresh Masjid, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi-110013(hereinafter referred as 'tenanted shop'). Petitioner is an old tenant in the said shop under the respondents' mother Smt. Sugra Begum and after her death; respondents have become the sole and absolute owner of tenanted shop. It was stated by the respondents that the tenanted shop is required bona fide by them and their dependant family members for commercial purposes. The family of respondents consists of 29 members excluding married daughters. Respondent no. 1 has four sons and respondent no. 2 has two major sons. All the family members of respondents are dependent on them. It was stated in the eviction petition by the respondents that elder son of respondent no. 1 is running a 'thela' and other sons of the respondents are unemployed.

(2.) Upon receiving the summons, the petitioner herein filed leave to defend application along with affidavit contending that respondents are not the owners of the tenanted shop. It was contended that the respondents have concealed the material facts as they are the owners of many properties situated in different parts of Delhi. It was further contended that two sons of the respondents namely Mohd. Sakir and Alamgir are doing the business of selling eatables and other sons are employed in different jobs.

(3.) The trial Court while dismissing the leave to defend observed that there is no dispute so far the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned as petitioner has admitted the fact that respondents are the absolute owners of the tenanted property. The plea of the petitioner that the respondents own other properties in Delhi was rejected as petitioner did not place any material on record to substantiate this claim. The factum of owning property no.D-81, Meer Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi was admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed by them. It was, however, stated by the respondents that the property at Nangloi is situated 27 kms. far from their residential premises and this is unsuitable for meeting their requirements. Keeping this fact in mind, the Ld. ARC concluded that the tenant cannot force landlord to travel about 55 km daily to run the business. The trial Court was also in agreement with the plea of bonafide requirement of the respondents and lack of sufficient accommodation with them. The ld. ARC also discussed the other contentions raised by the petitioners and found no merit in them whatsoever. Upon consideration of the averments of petitioner and respondents, the Ld. ARC dismissed the leave to contest of the petitioner.