MOHD. USMAN Vs. SIRAJ AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10th October 2005 of the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the eviction petition of the petitioner under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed after contest.

(2.) THE eviction petition was filed by the petitioner in respect of premises bearing No. 3393/VII, Gali Ibrahim, Jungli Kuan, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi qua premises two rooms, verandah, open courtyard, bath room, latrine and kitchen alleging therein that he needed the premises bona fidely. The petitioner had been working in Bombay Mercantile Corporative Bank. He retired from the said bank on 31st March 1999. His wife, who was a teacher, had also retired. He pleaded that he had decided to lead his retired life in Delhi since he was born, brought up and educated in Delhi. A part of the property in question was in occupation of his sister-in-law and after his retirement, he requested his sister-in-law as well as the respondent herein, to vacate the premises in their respective possession so that he may shift to Delhi. At the time of filing of the eviction petition, he was residing with his wife in Lucknow at the house of his sister. He submitted he required one room as bedroom, a room for entertaining guests, one room for giving tuitions to students by his wife and a store room. He had no issue. He was a man of status.

(3.) THE respondent had also raised issues qua ownership and letting purposes. However, issues of ownership and letting purposes were decided in favour of the petitioner. Regarding bona fide requirement, the trial court came to conclusion that the petitioner does not require the premises for his own use. He retired in Mumbai in 1999. Before or after his retirement, he had not written a letter to the respondent for vacating the suit premises. It is the petitioner's own case that he was a man of high status and the property admittedly falls in slums. A man of high status, as that the petitioner, retired as an officer from Bombay Mercantile Bank, could not be expected to live in slum area. There was nothing on record to show that he had any plans to settle in Delhi. While at the time of filing the eviction petition, the petitioner gave his address as that of Lucknow but during his cross examination, he gave his address as that of Mumbai which shows that he had shifted back to Mumbai. The trial court, therefore, dismissed the eviction petition.