SHARIFAN Vs. SH ABDUL HAMID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 6th June, 2013, whereby the leave to defend application filed by the Petitioners in an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') was dismissed, the Petitioners prefer the present petition.

(2.) IN the eviction petition, the Respondents stated that the tenanted premises, that is, one room, one common veranda, one common bathroom in property No.2431, Ground Floor, Gali M. Abdul Qadeer, G.B. Road, Delhi - 6 (in short 'the suit property') was let out to one Mohd.Yusuf at a monthly rent of Rs.10/ - excluding other charges and after the death of Mohd.Yusuf the Petitioners became the joint tenants. The suit property was purchased by the grandfather of the Respondents vide Sale Deed in December, 1931 and after his death the property devolved on the father of the Respondents namely late Mohd. Ramzan. Further after the death of Mohd. Ramzan, the other legal heirs relinquished their rights in favour of the Respondents vide Relinquishment Deed dated 6th May, 2005. Thus the Respondents as the coowners and landlord of the tenanted premises sought eviction of the Petitioners. It was stated that the Respondents have a large family and the accommodation available was insufficient. The Respondent No.4 had six children who were staying in two rooms in property No.2488, Street Katra Rajji, behind G.B. Road, Delhi -6. The youngest son and youngest daughter of Respondent No.3 were of marriageable age and there was acute shortage of accommodation. Further Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 were having only one room for their occupation.

(3.) IN the leave to defend application, the main ground urged by the Petitioners was that the Respondents were neither the owners nor the landlord of the tenanted premises as the same belonged to Slum and JJ Department/Custodian Department where the rent used to be deposited by Mohd. Yusuf and a FIR No.760 was also lodged at PS Kamla Market, Delhi against the Respondents in this regard. The Respondents had no connection with Allah Baksh who had migrated to Pakistan and the property was thus an evacuee property.