Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 607 (DEL)

BUNDHU KHAN v. AHMED HUSSAIN

2004-08-11

R.S.SODHI

body2004
R. S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS PETITION CHALLENGES THE ORDER DATED 27. 09. 2003 OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, DELHI IN E-234/2002 WHEREBY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER WHILE ADJUDICATING ON A PETITION FOR EVICTION FILED ON 6. 10. 2002 UNDER SECTION 14 (1) (E) OF THE RENT CONTROL ACT (FOR SHORT THE ACT) HAS DECREED A SUM VIDE ORDER DATED 27. 9. 2002. ( 2 ) THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED BY THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER ARE AS FOLLOWS: ". . . . THAT THE PETITIONER (RESPONDENT HEREIN) CONSTRUCTED THE TENANTED PREMISES,i. E. ONE QUARTER IN PROPERTY NO. 69, GALI SCHOOL WALI, KHUREJI KHAS, DELHI - 51 IN THE YEAR 1979 AND LATER ON LET OUT TO THE RESPONDENT FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES ONLY IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 1982. THE PETITIONER IS THE OWNER/landlord OF THE PROPERTY AND THE RESPONDENT IS PAYING RENT TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND OBTAINING RENT RECEIPTS. THE PETITIONER IS RESIDING IN PROPERTY NO. 66, KHUREJI KHAS, DELHI WHICH IS ADJOINING TO THE TENANTED PREMISES OF THE RESPONDENT. THE PETITIONER IS RESIDING IN PROPERTY NO. 66, KHUREJI KHAS, DELHI ALONG WITH ELEVEN OTHER MEMBERS WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS:- (1) WIFE OF THE PETITIONER NIFISA BEGUM, AGED 64 YEARS, (2) SAGIRUDDIN S/o THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS (3) SMT. FIRDOS BEGUM, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF THE PETITIONER, (4) MOHD. HANIF GRANDSON OF THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS OF MARRIAGEABLE AGE, (5) MOHD. JAHIR ANOTHER GRANDSON OF THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS - BOTH GRANDSONS ARE DOING BUSINESS, (6) MUSHARAF JAHAN - GRANDDAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONR AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, (7) SAEED AHMED-GRANDSON OF THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS STUDENT OF 9th CLASS, (8) MUSBEER FATIMAL - GRANDDAUGHTER AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, STUDENT OF 5th CLASS, (9) MOHD. TALIB - GRANDSON AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, STUDENT, (10) ABDUL REHMAN - GRANDSON AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, STUDENT, (11) SHAFIUR REHMAN AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS, GRANDSON OF THE PETITIONER. SO THERE ARE TWELVE MEMBERS RESIDING IN THE HOUSE. THE PETITIONER AND HIS SON SH. SAGIRUDDIN ARE RUNNING MILK DAIRY IN THE SAID PREMISES FOR THE LAST MANY DECADES AND EARNING THEIR LIVELIHOOD AND AT PRESENT THEY HAVE SIX BUFFALOES. THE SAID BUFFALOES ARE BEING TIED IN THE SAID PREMISES AND FEW PORTION/rooms ARE BEING USED TO KEEP CATTLE FOOD FOR THE ANIMALS IN THE SAID PROPERTY. THE PETITIONER AND HIS SON SH. SAGIRUDDIN ARE RUNNING MILK DAIRY IN THE SAID PREMISES FOR THE LAST MANY DECADES AND EARNING THEIR LIVELIHOOD AND AT PRESENT THEY HAVE SIX BUFFALOES. THE SAID BUFFALOES ARE BEING TIED IN THE SAID PREMISES AND FEW PORTION/rooms ARE BEING USED TO KEEP CATTLE FOOD FOR THE ANIMALS IN THE SAID PROPERTY. TWO GRANDSONS OF THE PETITIONER ARE ALSO USING A ROOM AS A SHOP IN THE SAID PREMISES AND DOING THE BUSINESS OF GARMENTS/clothes FOR THEIR LIVELIHOOD FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS. IN PROPERTY NO. 66, KHUREJI KHAS, THERE ARE IN ALL THREE LIVING ROOMS TWO SMALL STORES FOR USING/keeping BUFFALOES, ONE SHOP, BESIDES OPEN AND COVERED VARANDAH, KITCHEN, LAVATORY AND BATHROOM ON THE GROUND FLOOR, TWO SMALL ROOMS AND TERRACE AND KITCHEN AND LAVATORY ON THE FIRST FLOOR (ONE ROOM ON THE FIRST FLOOR IS BEING USED FOR KEEPING COW DUNG CAKES ). SO, IN ALL THE PETITIONER AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE IN POSSESSION OF FOUR LIVING ROOMS IN THE SUIT PROPERTY. THE SAID ACCOMMODATION IS VERY INSUFFICIENT AND INADEQUATE FOR THE RESIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER AND HIS ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ARE DEPENDENT UPON HIM FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TENANTED PREMISES IS VERY CLOSE AND ADJOINING TO THE PREMISES OF THE PETITIONER, SO THE SAME IS VERY SUITABLE FOR THE RESIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER AND HIS OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. TWO GRANDSONS OF THE PETITIONER ARE OF MARRIAGEABLE AGES AND THEIR MARRIAGES ARE BEING DELAYED DUE TO SHORT OF ACCOMMODATION. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY NO. 69, KHUREJI KHAS, DELHI WHICH IS BEHIND THE TENANTED PREMISES OF THE RESPONDENT, ONE OLD TENANT OF THE PETITIONER SHRI SAFIQ BURNEY VACATED ONE ROOM, ONE STORE, KITCHEN, BATHROOM, LAVATORY, OPEN VERANDAH VERY RECENTLY AND THE SAID PORTION IS ALSO IN POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONER. THE SAID QUARTER HAS NO DIRECT APPROACH OR LINK WITH THE PREMISES WHER THE PETITIONER IS AT PRESENT RESIDING. THE SAID PORTION IS SITUATED IN DIFFERENT GALI AND VERY FAR AWAY FROM THE PRESENT RESIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER AND IN FACT, NOT PROPERLY SUITABLE FOR THE PREMISES. THE OTHER TWO QUARTERS IN PROPERTY BEARING NO. 69, KHUREJI KHAS, DELHI ARE IN THE POSSESSION OF VERY OLD TENANT, NAMELY, MOHD. AHMED QURESHI AND LITIGATION FOR HIS EVICTION IS ALREADY GOING ON BEFORE LD. ARC, SHAHADRA, DELHI. THE OTHER TWO QUARTERS IN PROPERTY BEARING NO. 69, KHUREJI KHAS, DELHI ARE IN THE POSSESSION OF VERY OLD TENANT, NAMELY, MOHD. AHMED QURESHI AND LITIGATION FOR HIS EVICTION IS ALREADY GOING ON BEFORE LD. ARC, SHAHADRA, DELHI. THE PETITIONER IS ALSO OWNER/landlord OF PROPERTY NO. 21-X, KHUREJI KHAS, DELHI WHICH IS IN POSSESSION OF OLD TENANTS. NO PORTION IS LYING VACANT OR IN POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONER IN THE SAID PROPERTY. EXCEPT THE ABOVESAID THREE PROPERTIES, THE PETITIONER OR HIS ANY OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE NO OTHER RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION WITH THEM ANYWHERE. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTIN IS BONAFIDELY REQUIRED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS FOR THEIR RESIDENCE AND THUS, THE RESPONDENT IS LIABLE TO EVICT UNDER SECTION 14 (1) (E) READ WITH SECTION 25-B OF DRC ACT AS AMENDED UP-TO-DATE. " ( 3 ) IT IS CONTENDED BY COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER THAT THE LANDLORD HAD SUFFICIENT ACCOMMODATION AND THAT THE PREMISES WERE NOT LET OUT FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. ( 4 ) WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT UNDER CHALLENGE AS ALSO THE RECORD OF THE CASE. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT EVEN ON THE SHOWING OF THE PETITIONER HIMSELF APPEARING AS PW-1, WHO STATES THAT THE PREMISES IN DISPUTE IS SITUATED IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND THE PORTION IN OCCUPATION HAS BEEN USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AS WELL AS COMMERCIAL PURPOSES CONSISTS OF ONE ROOM, ONE KITCHEN, ONE LAVATORY AND ONE BATHROOM, THE NATURE OF THE ADMISSION IS SUCH THAT IT FORTIFIES THE CLAIM OF THE LANDLORD THAT THE PREMISES IN QUESTION WAS LET OUT FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. EVEN IF THE TENANT HAD PUT A PORTION OF THE PREMISES TO NON-RESIDENTIAL USE YET THE SAME CANNOT PARTAKE OF THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMERCIAL PREMISES UNLESS PERMISSION TO THIS EFFECT IS GIVEN BY THE LANDLORD. ( 5 ) AS REGARDS THE BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT, IT IS THE ADMITTED CASE OF THE PARTIES THAT THE LANDLORD HAS A LARGE FAMILY DEPENDENT ON HIM FOR RESIDENCE. ( 5 ) AS REGARDS THE BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT, IT IS THE ADMITTED CASE OF THE PARTIES THAT THE LANDLORD HAS A LARGE FAMILY DEPENDENT ON HIM FOR RESIDENCE. THE FAMILY CONSISTS OF 12 MEMBERS WHICH INCLUDES WIFE OF THE PETITIONER AGED 64 YEARS, SON OF THE PETITIONER WHO IS 38, HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, GRAND-SONS AGED 22 AND 19 YEARS, A GRAND-DAUGHTER WHO IS 15 YEARS OF AGE AND ANOTHER GRAND SON WHO IS 14 YEARS STUDYING IN 9th CLASS, ANOTHER GRAND-DAUGHTER WHO IS 12 YEARS OF AGE STUDYING IN 5th CLASS, ANOTHER GRAND-SON WHO IS ABOUT 7 YEARS AND YET ANOTHER ONE WHO IS 6 YEARS OF AGE, ANOTHER ONE WHO IS 2 YEARS OF AGE. ( 6 ) THE ACCOMMODATION AVAILABLE WITH THE LANDLORD/respondent IS CERTAINLY NOT SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE SUCH A LARGE FAMILY. HIS NEEDS ARE BONA FIDE. THE REASONING OF THE TRIAL COURT CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH. ( 7 ) RENT CONTROL REVISION NO. 6/2004 and CM. APPL. 901/2004 ARE DISMISSED.