MOHD AKHTAR Vs. ABDUL REHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/ landlords filed an eviction petition being ARC No.5206/2016 before the learned Additional Rent Controller, South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi Hereinafter 'learned ARC' against the respondent/ tenant qua premises bearing No.D-45, First Floor, Zakir Nagar (West), Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110 025 Hereinafter 'subject premises' under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Hereinafter 'the Act', on the ground that since they have a large family, they require the subject premises for the bona fide purpose of accommodating their family, and further, as the same is in a dilapidated condition, and may collapse at any moment, urgent repair work is required to be done therein. In fact, an earlier Eviction Petition filed by them qua the same subject premises was withdrawn. It was their case herein that the size of their family grew considerably for which the landlords did not have any alternative accommodation.

(2.) Upon being served, the tenant filed his application seeking leave to defend under Sec. 25B of the Act contending that the landlords had not made clear disclosures about the other premises available with them, specifically property No.O-405, Zakir Nagar (West), Gadha Colony, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi Hereinafter 'property No.405' consisting of ground floor and second floor, with two flats on each floor, as well as property No.414, Zakir Nagar (West), Jamia Nagar, New Delhi Hereinafter 'property No.414' consisting of ground floor till fourth floor with two flats on each floor, amounting to about ten rooms, of which, as per tenant, four were lying vacant. In fact, property No.D-45 wherein the subject premises is a part Hereinafter 'property No.D-45', as per tenant, was not in a dilapidated condition as five vacant rooms were not in occupation of the landlords. The landlords merely wanted to construct a multi-storeyed building therein for selling them on profit. The exact nature of the family needs of the landlords was vague, evasive and concocted.

(3.) In response, as per landlords, property No.405 was their current place of residence, which only had a ground floor and a first floor and was thus insufficient for their needs; and property No.414 though belonged to them comprised only ground floor to third floor with only the ground floor in their possession as the remaining floors were occupied by tenants. As such, the same was also insufficient for the familial requirements of the landlords. Lastly, though there were five vacant rooms in property No.D-45, they were very small, and in any event, the number of rooms required by the landlords was much greater. The combined requirement for residence of their entire family including children of the landlords, reconstruction of property No.D-45 was the only remedy available.