UMAR AND ORS. Vs. ISLAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rent control revision petition is filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') impugning the judgment dated 05.9.2012 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the leave to defend application filed by the petitioners/tenants and has decreed the eviction petition for bonafide necessity under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act with respect to the tenanted premises comprising of one room dalan on the ground floor along with a tin shed and one tin shed in the first floor of property no.2648, Mohalla Niarian,Behind G.B.Road, Delhi as shown in red and yellow colour in the site plan annexed along with the eviction petition.

(2.) (i) The facts as pleaded by the respondents/landlords are that the property 2648 was purchased by the respondent no.1 and one Husan Ara Begum (sister-in-law of respondent no.1) by registered sale deed dated 13.8.1993 from the previous owner Smt.Zamarud Begum. It was pleaded that Husan Ara Begum died leaving behind the respondent nos. 2 to 9 as her legal heirs. It was further pleaded that the suit property stands mutated in the name of the respondents after the purchase of the same by the registered sale deed.

(3.) The main contest between the parties and the only issue which is urged before this Court on behalf of the petitioners/tenants is that the respondents are not the owners/landlords of the suit premises. Reliance is placed upon by the petitioners/tenants upon the sale certificate dated 08.2.1963 as per which there were various co-owners of the property no. 2648, and out of which, Wahiduddin (predecessor-in-interest of respondents) was only one co-owner, and consequently it is argued that Wahiduddin could not have gifted the entire property 2648 to Smt.Zamarud Begum by the registered gift deed dated 06.5.1961 ie it is argued that once Wahiduddin was only a co-owner of the property 2648, that did not arise any issue of him gifting the entire property 2648 to Smt.Zamarud Begum from whom the respondent no.1 and Husan Ara Begum had purchased the suit property. In sum and substance, ie it is argued that if Smt.Zamarud Begum was not the owner of the suit property, then the petitioners cannot be the owners of the suit property simply because Smt.Zamarud Begum had executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent no.1 and Husan Ara Begum.