SHARIFUDDIN Vs. BABUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has assailed the order dated 27th March 2002 of the learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dismissing the eviction petition of the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) filed on the ground of bonafide requirement in respect of two rooms, kitchen, latrine on premises bearing no. 6362, Ward No. XIV, Gali Babu Bashrat.

(2.) THE landlord (petitioner herein) filed the eviction petition in the year 1998 on the ground of bonafide requirement of his family comprising of himself, his wife, four sons and three daughters. His two daughters were married and the elder son, aged 25 years, was of marriageable age. The other children were school-going. The petitioner was in occupation of only two rooms in the property bearing no. 5084, Gali Masjid Chhapparwali, Qassabpura. The petitioner"s requirement at the time of filing of the eviction petition was of at least five bedrooms, one drawing room, one study room, a store, kitchen, bathroom and a toilet so that the petitioner and his family could live in a dignified manner.

(3.) THE respondents in the written statement had not denied the ownership and relationship of landlord and tenant but took a stand that the premises was let out for residential-cum-commercial premises and the accommodation in occupation of the petitioner was not correctly shown. The extent of the family of the petitioner was, however, not disputed. It was stated that the petitioner was having entire property bearing number 5084, Gali Masjid Chhapparwali, qassabpura in his occupation. The property consisted of four rooms on the ground floor and three rooms on the first floor. Besides this, the petitioner was also having property bearing number 5093 to 5095 in Gali Chowkidarwali in his use and occupation and the need of the petitioner was not bonafide. Both the parties adduced evidence to prove their respective case. The learned ARC after considering the evidence of both sides observed that although the respondent had not stated in the written statement as to for what commercial purpose he was using the premises, but the onus to prove that the premises was let out for residential purpose was on the petitioner and this onus has not been sufficiently discharged. Learned ARC, however, considered the ground of bonafide requirement of landlord/petitioner also and observed that the petitioner has failed to show his bonafide requirement and has not come clean on the accommodation available with him.