MADHU MANAK TALA Vs. MOHD HANIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitions are being taken up together for the reason in the two eviction petitions under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') filed by the Petitioner Smt. Madhu Manak Tala, the two Respondents, that is Mohd. Hanif and Bhim Sen were granted leave to defend vide the impugned orders dated 13th April, 2015.

(2.) Mohd. Hanif and Bhim Sen are tenants in respect of private shop Nos. 8 and 2 respectively in the property bearing No. 106, Ground Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi owned by Smt. Madhu Manak Tala. In the eviction petition Smt. Madhu Manak Tala took the plea that the two shops on the ground floor were let out to the Respondents by her father wherein the father of Mohd. Hanif started the work of barber which was continued by Mohd. Hanif and father of Bhim Sen started the business of electrical goods and Bhim Sen continued the same. She stated that despite termination of the tenancy on account of non-payment of rent and mis-user, the building being in dangerous condition required to be demolished and required bona fidely, the premises ought to be vacated. In the eviction petition Madhu Manak Tala stated that in compliance of the order of the learned Civil Judge, the first and the second floor of the building has to be demolished as the same are in dangerous condition and thus the Petitioner wants to shift herself on the ground floor and needs the tenanted premises for her use and occupation for residential purpose. Further as per the Master Plan, 2021 and in compliance of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the shops are required to be vacated for the reason of mis-user. The entire residential premises is dilapidated and dangerous to life and property of the habitants. Since the demolition of the first and second floor would cause paucity of the accommodation, thus Smt. Madhu Manak Tala and her mentally retarded daughter needs to shift on the ground floor for which the eviction of the said portion is necessary and there is no other reasonably suitable accommodation.

(3.) In the leave to defend applications, filed by the Respondents, identical pleas were taken. It was stated that prior to the present petitions Smt. Madhu Manak Tala filed several eviction petitions on the grounds of arrears of rent, causing damage to property etc. which were finally dismissed and thus frustrated by the same she filed a civil suit stating that property No. 106, Ground Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi is dilapidated and the wall and the roof have developed many cracks which may lead to collapse of the building any moment and prayed directions from the Court thereby directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to demolish the entire property. The Court disposed of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC on 3rd January, 2011 and directing Smt. Madhu Manak Tala to carry out demolition of first and second floor without causing any damage to the structure existing on the ground floor. Thus in the garb of the said order the present eviction petition has been filed claiming bona fide requirement. It is further stated that the two tenanted shops were lying sealed by MCD pursuant to complaint by the Petitioner to the Monitoring Committee of MCD. Further the rear portion on the ground floor of the suit property behind the tenanted shops was previously occupied by telegraph office which had been vacated in the year 2008 whereafter Smt. Madhu Manak Tala let out the same to a Sangeet Niketan Dance and Music School. The rear portion consist of one bedroom, drawing dining room, covered veranda, toilet, kitchen and bath etc. and was vacated by the principal of the Dance and Music School in August, 2012.