GHAFOOR AHMED Vs. SABILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents/ landlords 'landlords' filed an eviction petition being E. No.77874/2016 entitled 'Mst. Sabila & Ors. vs. Sh. Gafoor Ahmed & Ors.' under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 'the Act' seeking eviction of one shop admeasuring 34" X 12'.5", located at 2nd floor in property bearing No. 3165, Phatak Teliyan, Turkman Gate, Delhi-110 006, before the SCJ-cum-RC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 'learned ARC' against the petitioners/ tenants 'tenants', as they had a bona fide requirement thereof for commercial/ official cum residential purposes as they had no other alternative accommodation available.

(2.) Briefly, it was the case of the landlords before the learned ARC that the subject premises had originally been let out by the joint owners, namely Sh. Qayamuddin, Ajmeri and Late Sh. Mohd. Deen (the husband and father of the present landlords), to Late Sh. Rais Ahmed (father of the tenants). After the demise of Late Sh. Rais Ahmed, the tenancy devolved upon the tenants herein in accordance with law. As per landlords, after the demise of Late Sh. Mohd. Deen, the subject premises devolved upon them by operation of law. Thus, they became the lawful owners/ landlords of the subject premises. It was also contended therein that out of the four shops, two shops were situated on the main road, while the remaining two shops were situated in the streets adjoining the residential place of the landlords, near the subject premises. The landlords had no other alternative accommodation with them for their need and use in lieu of the subject premises.

(3.) Furthermore, it was the case the landlords that at the time of filing the Eviction Petition, they were residing on the second floor consisting of insufficient accommodation. As such, they needed at least three shops, one shop for each landlord, as well as five rooms along with two latrines, a bathroom and a kitchen for their residential use by the landlords. Also, since landlord no.4, Ms. Tabassum had recently joined the legal profession, she required a separate office space for her professional practice. According to the landlords, the subject premises was most suitable and appropriate for meeting their bona fide requirements for commercial/ official, and residential purposes.