AKHTARI BEGUM Vs. ABDUL QADIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller whereby an application of the petitioners under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking leave to contest the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was dismissed and eviction order was passed.

(2.) The petitioners admittedly were tenants under the respondent in respect of one room of 10" X 10" and one tin shed 8" X 8" with one bath inside the tin shed room on the ground floor with no terrace rights. The premises was let out to Abdul Muqeem, husband of petitioner no. 1 and father of petitioner no. 2and3 for residential purpose. Tenancy of Abdul Muqeem was terminated vide notice dated 11.3.2005 during his lifetime. However, Abdul Muqeem died on 12.10.2005 and the petitioners (hereinafter called as "tenants") inherited the tenancy rights by operation of law. The respondent (hereinafter called as "landlord") in his eviction petition contended that he had 18 family members and the accommodation available with him and his family members was highly insufficient. His family consisted of himself, his wife, ten sons out of whom four were married, wives of his married sons and their children. The landlord contended that property in question, no. 1483-1492 was owned by him along with his brother. It consisted of 21 shops, 02 godowns, 02 tin sheds and one store on the ground floor, besides some residential portion including the suit premises. Out of this accommodation, 06 shops, 02 godowns, 02 tin sheds, one store were in possession of himself and his family members, who were running their businesses therefrom. The rest of the shops were in the possession of the different tenants. He was not in possession of any residential accommodation in the property. He was also the owner of MIG Flat No. B-3/10 DDA flats, Sarai Khalil consisting of one drawing-cum-dining, two bed-rooms, one kitchen, one bath, one latrine and one balcony. He had made further additions in the property and constructed two bed-rooms, one drawing room, latrine and bath on the terrace. One room on the terrace was in possession of his son Abdul Rehman and his family and the other room on terrace was in possession of his son Hafizur Rehman and his family. The drawing room on the terrace was used for keeping household articles and for sleeping of his three unmarried sons. One room of the MIG Flat was in his possession where he and his wife lived and the other room was used for keeping household goods and for sleeping by the remaining three unmarried sons. His other two married sons were living with their families in rented accommodation at Inderlok and Sarai Khalil. He owned a commercial plot at Shahzada Bagh, Inderlok, which was in possession of his younger brother Abdul Majid. The accommodation available with him was highly insufficient.

(3.) The tenants in their application for leave to defend contended that the landlord was in possession of several properties including property in question measuring 700 sq. yards. The landlord had constructed a market on the ground floor and first floor and had let out the same to different tenants and was having income of Rs.80,000/- per month. Fourth and fifth floors in this property were being used by the landlord himself. He also owned two flats at Sarai Khalil and one house in Inderlok in his own name. He filed this petition malafidely sine the tenancy was very old tenancy and monthly rent was Rs.3.75, which landlord refused to accept. The landlord had no bona fide requirement as he had got lot of immovable properties.