SHAMSHAD ALI Vs. MUKHTIAR BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 7413/2015 (Exemption)

(2.) Eviction petition was filed by Mukhtar Begum against Hamid Ali stating that Hamid Ali was a tenant in two rooms, open space and latrine in property bearing No. 1861, Suiwala Bazar, Gali Pattewali, Delhi-110006 (in short 'the tenanted premises') on a rent of Rs.100/- per month excluding other charges. It was stated that Shri Raees Ullaha, husband of Mukhtar Begum was the absolute owner of Property No. 1861, Suiwala Bazar (in short 'the suit property') having purchased the same vide registered Sale Deed dated 25th May, 1973 and 3rd December, 1981. Raees Ullah executed a Will in his lifetime and thus Mukhtar Begum became the absolute owner of the suit property. The eviction petition was filed for the bona fide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') due to the growing needs of the family of Mukhtar Begum which comprises of four sons and three daughters, two of whom were unmarried. It was further stated that Hamid Ali had sub-let the property or otherwise parted with the possession without the knowledge and consent of the landlord and was not living in the premises in question and had shifted to 1474, Chowk Sui Wallan, Delhi-110006. No leave to defend was granted to Hamid Ali and an eviction order was passed vide order dated 6th December, 2012.

(3.) In the meantime, Hamid Ali expired and his Legal Heirs filed a revision petition being R.C. Revision No. 18/2013 before this Court challenging the eviction order dated 6th December, 2012, which was dismissed on 4th April, 2013. Thereafter, Mukhtar Begum filed an execution petition wherein objections were filed by Shamshad Ali. In the objection petition Shamshad Ali stated that he along with his brother Irshad Ali were in exclusive, physical possession of two rooms set with open space in the ground floor of the suit property, that is, the tenanted premises. The LRs of the judgment Debtor Hamid Ali were not in possession of any portion of the tenanted premises. The Decree Holder invoked wrong provision of law, that is, bona fide requirement to seek eviction. The ownership of the Decree Holder was disputed.