ASLAM Vs. NAIMA KHATOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 09.11.2011 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlords under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRCA) had been decreed; the application filed by the petitioner/tenant seeking leave to defend had been declined.

(2.) Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA. There were three petitioners before the trial Court. Their contention was that they are the owners of the suit property. The property was initially owned by Asifa Khatoon; she had gifted the property in favour of the petitioners. A suit for declaration had in fact been filed by the petitioners wherein a compromise had been arrived at between the parties in terms of which the aforenoted property had fallen to the share of the three petitioners. The copy of the plaint, the application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') as also the order dated 23.09.1997 recording the compromise in the aforenoted suit had been placed on record. The bonafide need has been described in para 18-A of the eviction petition. The need has been described is the need of petitioner No. 1; she required the premises for carrying on the medical clinic of her son namely Mohd. Aamir who is a Doctor and dependent upon petitioner No. 1 for the purpose of getting accommodation for running of his clinic; she has no other reasonable suitable accommodation for running a clinic for her son. Premises were thus bonafide required by her. It has further been averred that Mohd. Aamir had obtained his medical degree from Delhi Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad on 27.09.2010 and wants to run his own clinic for the purpose of his livelihood. Eviction petition was accordingly filed.

(3.) The application seeking leave to defend has been perused. There were four main grounds which were urged before the trial Court. The first and foremost ground was the denial of landlord/tenant relationship. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner on this count is that the petitioner was the tenant of Asifa Khatoon and not of the present landlord; Asifa Khatoon had in fact died in Pakistan on 26.10.1994 and the suit for declaration in which the aforenoted compromise had been arrived at between the petitioners and Asifa Khatoon is a sham transaction; the petitioners have played a fraud upon this Court.