NOOR AHMED Vs. RUQAIYA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground of bona fide requirement. It was stated in the eviction petition that two rooms and one small open courtyard between the two rooms situated on the ground floor of property No. 4927, Gali Darzian, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi was let out to Mohd. Ahmed, late father of the petitioners. The tenancy was originally created by one Hafiz Abdul Aziz, who was the owner and father of the respondent. The premises were let out for residential purpose. Shri Aziz passed away on 29.06.1943 and thereafter the property devolved upon his four legal representatives, which included the petitioner, her two brothers and one sister. The property was stated to be partitioned among the legal representatives by the registered partition deed dated 13.07.1987 in terms whereof the tenanted property along with one room in open terrace situated on the first floor and one room on the second floor fell to the share of the respondent. The family of the respondent comprised of herself, her husband, three sons and two daughters. The respondent was residing in a portion of house No. 7832 situated at New Basti, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi which was jointly owned by the husband of the respondent and his brother Shri Basheeruddin. The respondent was stated to be residing along with her family members in one room, while the mother-in-law of the respondent and the elder brother of her husband were residing in the store. Thus, the respondent claimed bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises.

(2.) The petitioners entered appearance and their application for leave to defend the suit was granted with consent of learned counsel for the parties and the petition was set down for trial. The petitioners disputed the ownership of the respondent. It was stated that after the death of the original owner, Shri Aziz, the tenanted property fell to the share of Ms. Amna, mother of the respondent apart from the respondent, her two brothers and the sister. The respondent, thus, had 7/48 share in the property. The respondent is alleged to have migrated to Pakistan and the share of the respondent in terms of an order dated 13.08.1954 of the Custodian was declared as an evacuee property. The petitioners denied ever paying rent to the respondent and it was stated that the rent was paid to Mohd. Aziz for which rent receipts were issued. The petitioners had not attorned to the respondent as tenant.

(3.) The petitioners also claimed that the property was let out both for residential and commercial purposes and was being used as such since the inception of the tenancy. Four hand-pressed machines were installed in the tenanted premises and the property was being used for manufacturing Bunda Balies (ear tops and ear rings).