USMAN Vs. SHAHZAD BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-landlord has come up in revision under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the judgment dated May 27, 1986, of Shri R.K. Sharma, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, by which he had dismissed the eviction petition brought by the landlord on the ground of eviction.

(2.) Admittedly, Khalil Raza was a tenant in the demised premises, which is house No. 867, Lane Madarsa Hussain Bux, Tokriwalan, Delhi, at the rental of Rs. 10.00 per mensem and had become tenant of the petitioner by operation of law on petitioner purchasing this property from the previous owner vide sale deed dated November 28, 1960. Khalil Raza also executed a rent note in favour of the petitioner on January 20, 1961, in which it was shown that the premises had been let out only for residential purpose. On the death of Khalil Raza on October 2, 1970, respondents 1 to 9 (his legal heirs) became tenants under the petitioner. Respondent No. 10 is wife of respondent No. 2 living in the premises. The petitioner's family comprises of himself, his wife and his mother and four sons and five daughters, out of whom one son, namely, Mohd. Iqbal is married and is having two children presently. According to the petitioner, he and all his family members are residing in premises No. 516, Tokriwalan, Delhi, at the rental of Rs. 16.00 per mensem and the accommodation available to the petitioner and his family members in that house comprises only of one room measuring 13'.4" x 7'.3" verandah, kitchen, latrine, open courtyard, on the first floor and a room measuring 13'.9"x7'.3" and open terrace, on the second floor. It was pleaded that the petitioner and his family members are not in possession of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and thus, they bonafide require the demised premises for occupation as residence for themselves.

(3.) The petition has been contested by the respondents by filing two sets of written statement, one by respondents 4, 6, 7 & 8 and the other by respondents 1, 2, 5, 9 & 10. Similar pleas were taken in these two written statements. Respondents controverted the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the property in question and that premises had been let out for residential purposes only and also pleaded that mother of the petitioner is not residing with the petitioner and in fact, she is residing with her brother in a separate house. Respondents further pleaded that the petitioner has concealed certain residential accommodations available to him and his family members from the court and thus, the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed on that score. It was mentioned that petitioner had purchased a plot in Lane No. 12atJafrabad,Sbahdara,in the name of his son Mohd. Iqbal and has constructed a house thereon which comprises of three rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine and courtyard and that the petitioner has also got double storeyed house No. 872/1, Gali Madarsewali, Churiwalan, Delhi, which is a residential accommodation and the petitioner has also large premises No. 180 in Lane No. to at Jafrabad. It was also pleaded in the written statement that the petitioner has entered into an agreement for sale in the sum of Rs. 20.000.00 with one Hamid Ali and Rs. 2,000.00 has been received in advance and this eviction petition has been filed only to get vacant possession and deliver the same to the prospective vendee. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had filed a civil suit for recovery of possession against the respondents which was dismissed on April 30, 1977.