MOHAMMAD UMAR Vs. AZIMUNNISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') is directed against the order dated 20th July, 2002 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi thereby dismissing an application of the tenant seeking leave to contest the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act and passing an eviction order in respect of the suit premises.

(2.) The respondents-landlords had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter referred to as the `Tenant') with the averments and allegations that their predecessor-in-interest Sh.Hafizuddin @ Mohd.Idris was the owner of property No.4534, Gali Shahtara, Shish Mahal, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. He having died on 13th June, 1997 leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs who have inherited the suit property as joint owners. Mohd.Umar was inducted as a tenant in respect of the first floor and barsati floor portion as shown in red colour in the site plan of the said property for residential purpose @ Rs.60/- per month excluding all other charges. The landlords alleged that they did not have any reasonably suitable residential accommodation available with them and, therefore, the tenanted premises is required by them bona fide for their own residence and for the residence of their family members numbering eight. They also alleged that some of them had been residing in a rented accommodation of two rooms and one kothri on first floor and two rooms on the second floor of another property bearing No.4481, Gali Shahtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.

(3.) The tenant being served with the special summons of the eviction petition filed an affidavit seeking leave to contest the eviction petition not disputing the factum of ownership, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the extent of premises and rate of rent etc. but contended that the premises had been let out to him for residential-cum-commercial purpose and that he had been doing the business of manufacturing chappals besides using the same for residence ever since the inception of the tenancy in 1978. It is stated that even before renting in the suit property, the same was occupied by his fore-fathers for the composite purpose of residence and business. It was disputed that the petitioners required the suit premises bona fide and it was pleaded that they have more than sufficient accommodation at their disposal. It was also pleaded that there is other more suitable portions in the suit premises occupied by other tenants but the landlords have chosen to seek his eviction due to mala fide consideration as they intend to raise a three story building in the open courtyard. It is also alleged that since 1990, the predecessor-in-interest of the landlords had been asking for further increase in rent or to vacate the premises and he neglected in carrying out the repairs. It was also contended that Hafizuddin had agreed to sell the tenanted premises for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was paid to him in cash as earnest money on 5th August, 1994. It was further pleaded that the landlords with the mala fide intention had filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction for directing the deponent-tenant to remove himself with bag and baggage from the tenanted premises as the same was in dilapidated condition and was likely to fall down any moment which suit is stated to be pending in the Court of Civil Judge. The stand taken in the present eviction petition is contrary to the stand taken in the suit.