ABDUL WAHEED AND ORS. Vs. ABID HASSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition impugns the order dated 17.10.2013, whereby the petitioner's application for leave to defend was dismissed and an eviction order with respect to the tenanted premises. The respondent/landlord had filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) for requirement of premises for bona fide need.

(2.) IT was the case of the landlord that the premises are owned by him. Admittedly the property was let out by his father to the petitioner/tenant. The property was purchased by the father of the landlord/respondent from the Custodian of the Evacuee Property in an auction sale dated 10.12.1960 and a Sale Certificate was issued by the Managing Officer, Evacuee Property and that the Custodian had given the numbers as 16 and 17 to the said property. Subsequently Municipal No. 253, Khureji Khas, Delhi was assigned to the property. After the demise of the landlord's father, viz. late Mr. Mohd. Hasan, his legal heirs and late Mr. Hasan's brother namely Mr. Ali Hasan divided the property by virtue of a written family settlement dated 16.7.2009.

(3.) IN the application for leave to defend the tenant argued that there was no bona fide need; that the eviction petitioner was not the owner of the property; that the land was part of a village pond and that pond was filled up when the father of the landlord was the Village Pradhan and the suit property came up thereon which was identified as Nos. 16 & 17, Khureji Khas, Delhi; that the municipal No. 253, Khureji Khas was assigned to the suit property did not match with property Nos. 16 & 17 alleged to have been purchased in an auction by the Custodian; that one Shri Aflatoon (deceased) colluded with the eviction -petitioner to benefit the latter; the alleged family settlement too did not show plot Nos. 16 & 17 nor did it show Municipal property Nos. 253, 254 and 255, Khureji Khas; that widowed mother Smt. Varisa Begum was receiving the rent after the death of Shri Mohd. Hasan and the landlord/respondent had never received rent from the petitioner -tenant; that the eviction petition was motivated primarily by avarice and to re -let it out at a higher rent; that the eviction petitioner had admittedly a very small family and his alleged requirement of opening a kirana shop was a mere sham because there were other alternate suitable accommodation available of 250 sq.yds. of land property No. 254, Khureji Khas; that the eviction -petitioner was a compounder with Dr. Santosh Dixit at Parwana Road, Delhi. Therefore, the tenant contended, that it was clear that the landlord did not require the premises and that there were sufficient triable issues raised in the application seeking leave to defend. The tenant further contended that he was about 50 years old and earning his livelihood through a bakery shop from the tenanted premises; that he denied ownership of property No. 383, Khureji Khas, Delhi but admitted ownership of House No. 320, built over an area of 300 sq.yds., which is built as his residence; that shop No. 350 was taken on rent wherefrom the bakery business was run by his son Riazuddin.