MUMTAZ BEGUM Vs. MOHD KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 have been preferred by the landlords against the order dated 21st February, 2005 of the Addl. Rent Controller dismissing the two petitions for eviction, both under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act preferred by the landlords against two tenants, both in different portions of property No.1909, Mohalla Qubaristan, Turkman Gate, Delhi. The Addl. Rent Controller held the petitioners to be owner/landlords of the premises in the tenancy of the tenants; further held the premises to have been let out to the tenants for residential purposes only, negated the plea of the tenant in RCR No.78-79/2005 of the petition for eviction being not with respect to the entire premises in his tenancy.

(2.) However, the petition for eviction subject matter of RCR No.78-79/2005 was dismissed inter alia on the ground of the landlords having not given any plausible explanation for non production of the title deeds of property No.2299, Chhatta Momgran, Turkman Gate, Delhi, which the tenant contended to be belonging to the petitioner No.2 Fazle Azim and the petitioners claimed to be belonging to wife of petitioner No.2 Fazle Azim and which would have been the best evidence to show that the property belonged not to the petitioner No.2 but to his wife. Qua the said property, it was also held that the landlords had not produced the site plan of the property to disclose the extent of the accommodation therein; it was held that when the landlords had filed site plans of the other accommodations/properties which the tenant had averred to be alternative suitable accommodation for the landlords, there was no reason for not producing the site plan of the said property. The other reason for dismissal of the eviction petition subject matter of RCR No.78-79/2005 was qua property No.2384, Jangli Kuan, Gali Shahbuddin, Kucha Pandit, Delhi. It was the case of the tenant that the said property belonged to the petitioner No.1 Mumtaz Begum; it was the case of the landlords that the same was occupied by the mother of the petitioner No.1 and is very small and in a dilapidated condition and not suitable for the residence of the landlords. The Addl. Rent Controller held that the onus was on the landlords to prove that the said property was not suitable for them and the landlords had not filed any site plan in respect of the said property to show the accommodation therein or any document to show as to how the same was not suitable for the landlords.

(3.) The Addl. Rent Controller thus dismissed the petition for eviction subject matter of RCR No.78-79/2005 for the reason of the landlords having failed to prove that the aforesaid two properties were not reasonable suitable residence for themselves and for having failed to disclose the correct extent of accommodation in the said properties. It was held that the bonafides of the landlords had become doubtful for the failure to disclose the correct extent of accommodation in the aforesaid two properties.