HOOR CHAMAN BEGUM Vs. HURRIYAT KHANAM & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to impugn the order dated 10.03.2015 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as ARC) dismissing the eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlady under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as the DRC Act).

(2.) The petitioner filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act regarding property being First Floor (back portion) of property No.1489, Gali Hakim Ajmal Khan, Qasimjan Street, Ballimaran, Delhi- 110006. The petitioner who is said to be aged above 80 years is the owner of the said property which is said to be constructed up to the first floor. The petitioner is in occupation of the ground floor of the property which is said to comprise four rooms, two toilets, two bathrooms and one kitchen, etc. The petitioner has three sons, namely, Sultan Mohd., Kamal Mohd and Iqbal Mohd. Sultan Mohd., the eldest of the sons has two sons and three daughters of whom two sons are unmarried being 26 and 23 years respectively. All the daughters are married. Iqbal Mohd. has three sons who are unmarried aged 19, 16 and 12 years respectively. The third son of the petitioner, namely, Kamal Mohd. who along with his family is living in UK, is said to be a frequent visitor to India. The entire family is said to be living on the ground floor. It is averred that all the grandsons are either of marriageable age or about to marry and each of them requires a separate room for themselves. Further, the petitioner has daughters who are all married. However, one daughter, namely, Madina Sultan is a divorcee and is living with the petitioner along with her 25 year old son who is also of marriageable age. Hence, the petitioner also requires one room for the said daughter and one for her son. A requirement is also stated for a guest room as number of relatives keep visiting the petitioner. Hence, it is urged that the ground floor portion of the property is not sufficient to live in and the petitioner bona fide requires the tenanted premises for her residence and for her family.

(3.) The respondents were granted leave to defend and they have filed a written statement. In the written statement, the respondents have claimed that the petitioner has concealed material facts regarding large number of other properties owned by her and her family. A list of 13 properties is given which are alleged to be owned by the petitioner and her family members which according to the respondents are available to the petitioner for her use.