SHARIFUDDIN Vs. RIZAUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 4th December 2002 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dismissing an eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act).

(2.) The petitioner has filed the eviction petition in respect of premises comprising one room, kitchen and toilet on the ground floor of the property bearing number 6359, Ward No. 14, Gali Babu Bashirath, Quasabpura, Sardar Bazar, Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 8. The petitioner s contention was that his family consisted of himself, his wife, four sons and three daughters. Two daughters were married and the elder son was 25 years old and of marriageable age. The other children were school going. He filed this eviction petition in 1993. The petitioner s requirement (at the time of filing of eviction petition) was of minimum five bed rooms, one drawing room, one study room, storeroom, kitchen, bathroom, toilet etc. for a dignified living. He was in occupation of only two rooms in property bearing number 5084, Gali Masjid Chapparwali, Qusabpura, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi. It was contended by the respondent that the petitioner was in occupation of much more accommodation than what he pleaded. The property No. 5084 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 Chowikdarwali being used by the petitioner and his children. The respondent also took a stand that he was using the premises as residential-cum-commercial premises and when the tenancy was created neither the present petitioner nor the present respondent were in existence. The respondent and the petitioner came on the scene later on. The learned ARC after considering the evidence of the parties came to conclusion that the premises was let out for residential purpose and not residential-cum-commercial purposes. Regarding bonafide necessities, the learned ARC observed that the petitioner s two witnesses i.e. his son and himself had given inconsistent facts in the court and had not disclosed true facts so they are not reliable and trustworthy witnesses. In the site plan of the premises No. 5084 the top floor has not been shown whereas in the cross examination, witnesses had admitted that there was a room on the top floor, which was in occupation of his Bua. About the ground floor it was stated that it was occupied by his brother Mohd. Illiyas but he was not produced in the court. The trial court observed that the ration card of Mohd. Illiyas produced in Court was prepared on 3rd January 1977 i.e. during the pendency of the petition. The learned ARC therefore held that the claim of the petitioner was not bonafide. The learned ARC also observed that in view of the fact that a portion of the property was got vacated from other tenant and was not occupied by the petitioner and nothing has been brought on record to show that this property was in dilapidated condition. The learned ARC dismissed the eviction petition of the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner has assailed the order of the trial court on the ground that the trial court had considered the facts extraneous to the subject matter. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not supposed to file the site plan of the entire building but was only to file the site plan of the premises in his occupation. Even if it was not shown in the site plan that there was a room on the second floor, that could not be a factor against the petitioner since petitioner was not in occupation of that room. It is also submitted that the trial court had failed to consider the extent of the family of the petitioner, accommodation in possession of the petitioner and how the premises was sufficient to meet the requirements of the petitioner. The trial court rejected the eviction petition only on conjectures and surmises and that on the ground that the site plan was not correct since two witnesses had put responsibility on each other for preparation of the site plan. Trial court ignored that the petitioner was an old person aged above 70 years. He had not appeared in the witness box initially and only his son had appeared. He was compelled to appear in the court, despite his old age and serious ailments, since he had lost two other eviction petitions on account of his non appearance. The trial court did not rely upon the exhibited documents and did not appreciate the evidence.