MOHD SHAMIM SIDDIQUI Vs. GURUDAYAL WADHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 6th September, 2007 passed by learned ARC whereby an Eviction Petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) THE relevant facts for deciding this petition are that the petitioner claimed that he was landlord/owner of the property No. T-563/7b/a Gali No. 3, Baljit Nagar. One room with use of common bath room, WC and open courtyard forming part of aforesaid property was let out to the respondent for residential purpose in November, 1998 at monthly rent of Rs. 650/ -. The petitioner bona fidely required the premises in question for his own residence and residence of his family members. His family consisted of himself, his wife and his three sons aged 30, 28 and 20 years respectively. He was presently residing at premises No. 3460/6, Gali Thelewali, Bara hindu Rao, Delhi. His sons were of marriageable age but because of paucity of accommodation he had not able to marry his sons. He submitted that there was another tenant in the property in question named Mohammad Yakub who had assured that he would vacate the portion under his tenancy as and when respondent vacated the premises and the petitioner, on vacation of the premises by the respondent, intends to shift to his house in Baljit Nagar, which has better surroundings and hygienic conditions.

(3.) LEAVE to defend was granted to the respondent. In the WS filed by the respondent, the respondent challenged the ownership of the petitioner and stated that the premises was let out to him for residential-cum-commercial purpose. He used to do his tailoring work/job in the premises. He also took a stand that the petitioner was in possession of the two rooms on the ground floor and one room on first floor of the premises in question which he was keeping locked and unused. There was no tenant named Mohammad Yakub as alleged. The petitioner had failed to show his social status and income of himself and family members dependent upon him. The petitioner, in fact, had no social status. It was also stated that the petitioner was in possession of two rooms in the property No. 3460/6, Gali thelewali, Bara Hindu Rao while he has only shown one room in his possession. The present accommodation available with the petitioner was much more than sufficient since the sons of the petitioner were not dependent upon the petitioner for residential purpose. Elder son of the petitioner was residing separately. The petitioner had no love and affection for his elder son.