MIRAJUDDIN Vs. MOHAMMAD HABIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision petition under Section 25 -B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the petitioner/tenant impugns the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 2.6.2011 by which the Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the application for leave to defend and has granted an eviction order with respect to the tenanted premises bearing no.652, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, Delhi comprising of a room and an open courtyard on the first floor of the property.

(2.) THE respondents/landlords plead bonafide necessity for the requirement of the respondent no.1, and who was the petitioner no.1 in the eviction petition. Respondent no.1/Mohammad Habib is the son of late Mohd. Bundoo who purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated 26.3.1969 from the erstwhile owner Sh. Abdul Gafoor. The need of the respondent no.1 is stated to arise because in the present premises in which the respondents are staying being R -29 -A, Brahm Puri, New Seelam Pur, Delhi there are just nine rooms in which 23 persons are living with great difficulty. Whereas the respondent no.4 is occupying three rooms rests of the six rooms are used by the 17 members of the family. Respondent no.1 claims that he needs the tenanted premises not only because the accommodation at the existing premises at Brahm Puri is insufficient, but also because below the tenanted premises the respondent no.1 has a shop and he has to travel about 24 kms daily to commute to his shop, which in his advanced age, is not feasible for him and therefore the respondent no.1 wants to stay in the suit premises which is above the shop in which he is carrying on his business.

(3.) SO far as the first aspect is concerned, as to whether the respondents/landlords are not the owners because the registered sale deed of Mr. Abdul Gafoor dated 26.3.1969 is allegedly fabricated because Sh. Abdul Gafoor had migrated to Pakistan and property vests in the Government under the Custodian of Enemy Property Act, this argument is wholly frivolous and misconceived. Firstly, it is noted that neither Sh. Abdul Gafoor/the seller nor any of his legal heirs if he has expired, nor any other person claims to be the owner of the suit property except the respondents who have purchased the same under a registered sale deed. The self -serving averment that Sh. Abdul Gafoor was not in India on the date of execution of the sale deed cannot make any difference and it cannot be urged that the property becomes an enemy property and vests in the Government. Self -serving averments, without any basis, more so when made by tenants so as to dispute the bonafide necessity are only bald averments and do not raise triable issues. Once neither Sh. Abdul Gafoor nor anybody else is disputing the sale deed, and there is no proof on record filed by the present petitioner that Sh. Abdul Gafoor was not in India when the sale deed dated 26.3.1969 was executed, clearly the argument of respondents not being owners is wholly unsustainable and is accordingly rejected.