Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 621 (DEL)

ZAHID HUSSAIN v. AENUL HAQ QURESHI

2004-08-13

R.S.SODHI

body2004
R. S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) RC-REV. 1177 OF 2002 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 7. 5. 2002 OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (FOR SHORT controller ) IN E-63/02 WHEREBY THE LEARNED CONTROLLER HAS ALLOWED THE PETITION AND ORDERED EVICTION FROM THE PREMISES IN QUESTION. ( 2 ) BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS HAVE BEEN NOTED BY THE LEARNED CONTROLLER, ARE : "that SHRI AENUL HAQ QURESHI (NOW REPRESENTED THROUGH L. RS.) FILED THE PRESENT EVICTION AGAINST SH. ZAHID HUSSAIN (NOW REPRESENTED THROUGH L. RS.) ON THE GROUND OF BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT ALLEGING THAT THE PETITIONER IS THE OWNER OF PROPERTY NO. 337-C/3, GALI NO. 4, BATLA HOUSE, JAMIA NAGAR, OKHLA, N. DELHI OUT OF WHICH TWO ROOMS, ONE VERANDAH, KITCHEN, BATHROOM, CHAJJA, OPEN COURT YARD ON THE FIRST FLOOR WAS LET OUT TO THE RESPDT. IN DECEMBER, 1981 FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. THE PETITIONER NOW REQUIRES THE PREMISES IN DISPUTE BONA FIDE FOR HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS DEPENDENT UPON HIM FOR RESIDENCE. THE PETITIONER s FAMILY COMPRISES OF HE HIMSELF, HIS WIFE, THREE SONS AND TWO UNMARRIED DAUGHTERS. THE PETITIONER IS ALSO HAVING THREE MARRIED DAUGHTERS. THEY ALSO VISIT THE PETR. ONE OF THE DAUGHTERS, SHAHNAZ, WHO IS MARRIED IS NOT LIVING WITH HER HUSBAND AND SHE ALONG WITH HER FAMILY IS LIVING WITH THE PETR. ON THE TOP FLOOR. THE PETITIONER HAS GOT ONE ROOM USED AS DRAWING ROOM, ONE LIVING ROOM, VERANDAH, KITCHEN AND BATH ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF H. NO. 36 (OLD) 37/1 (NEW), GALI NO. 1, JAMIA NAGAR, OKHLA, NEW DELHI. ON THE TOP FLOOR HIS DAUGHTER MST. SHAHNAZ IS LIVING ALONG WITH HER FAMILY. IT IS PRAYED THAT AN EVICTION ORDER BE PASSED AGAINST THE RESPDT. " ( 3 ) IT WAS CONTENDED BY COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES IN QUESTION AND THAT THE PREMISES WERE LET OUT FOR RESIDENTIAL-CUM-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES AND THE LANDLORD/landlady DID NOT REQUIRE THE PREMISES BONA FIDE FOR USE AND OCCUPATION OF HIMSELF AND MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY. HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE LANDLORD/landlady HAS ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION SUITABLE FOR HER RESIDENCE. ( 4 ) I HAVE HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AS ALSO COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT AND GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT UNDER CHALLENGE AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE LANDLORD/landlady HAS ALTERNATIVE RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION SUITABLE FOR HER RESIDENCE. ( 4 ) I HAVE HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AS ALSO COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT AND GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT UNDER CHALLENGE AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE LANDLORD/landlady HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS OWNED BY HIM AND FURTHER THAT SMT. AQILA KHATOON, THE LANDLADY, IS HIS WIFE. THE CONTENTION THAT THE SALE DEED PERTAINS ONLY TO AGRICULTURAL LAND CAN HARDLY ADVANCE THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER SINCE HE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT HE IS THE TENANT OF THE WIFE OF THE RESPONDENT HEREIN WHO HAS STATED THAT HE IS THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES AND HAS RELIED UPON THE SALE DEED TO ESTABLISH THE SAME. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE TENANT EXCEPT FOR SHOOTING IN THE DARK, HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW AS TO WHO ELSE IS THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES IN QUESTION. MERE DENIAL OF OWNERSHIP IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. THE TENANT WHO HAD BEEN LIVING IN THIS HOUSE MUST STATE SPECIFICALLY AS TO WHO IS THE OWNER OF THE PREMISES IN QUESTION. A BALD DENIAL OR FRIVOLOUS PLEA CANNOT ADVANCE HIS CASE. ( 5 ) IN ORDER TO PROVE THE PURPOSE OF LETTING ALTHOUGH THE PETITIONER ALLEGES THAT THE PREMISES IN QUESTION WERE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE, YET HE ADMITS THAT HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE RESIDING IN THE PREMISES IN DISPUTE AND THAT WHEN THE PREMISES WERE TAKEN ON RENT, HE, HIS WIFE AND TWO SONS WERE RESIDING IN THE SAME. MERELY BECAUSE THE TENANT MAY HAVE USED A PORTION THEREOF FOR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE FACT THAT THE PREMISES IN A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WERE LET OUT FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES WHERE THE TENANT HIMSELF HAS BEEN RESIDING. ON THE QUESTION OF BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT, THERE IS EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE FAMILY OF THE RESPONDENT HEREIN, WHO IS NOW DECEASED, CONSISTS OF HIS WIDOW, HIS MARRIED SON, ANOTHER UNMARRIED SON, TWO UNMARRIED DAUGHTERS AND ALSO GRAND-CHILDREN AND FOUR MARRIED DAUGHTERS. THE ACCOMMODATION IN POSSESSION OF THE LANDLORD/landlady IS ONE ROOM, ONE DRAWING ROOM AND ONE ROOM ON THE GROUND FLOOR, ONE BARSATI ON THE FIRST FLOOR BESIDES LATRINE, KITCHEN AND BATH ROOM WHEREAS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LANDLADY IS SIX BED ROOMS. THE ACCOMMODATION IN POSSESSION OF THE LANDLORD/landlady IS ONE ROOM, ONE DRAWING ROOM AND ONE ROOM ON THE GROUND FLOOR, ONE BARSATI ON THE FIRST FLOOR BESIDES LATRINE, KITCHEN AND BATH ROOM WHEREAS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LANDLADY IS SIX BED ROOMS. ONE BED ROOM FOR THE WIDOW, TWO BED ROOMS FOR THE MARRIED SON AND THREE CHILDREN, ONE ROOM FOR UNMARRIED SON, ONE ROOM EACH FOR TWO UNMARRIED DAUGHTERS AS ALSO ONE ROOM TO ACCOMMODATE THE MARRIED DAUGHTERS WHENEVER THEY VISIT THEIR PARENTAL HOUSE AND A GUEST ROOM. THE LEARNED CONTROLLER, UPON APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM, RETURNED A FINDING ON BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT AS UNDER : "petitioner IS IN POSSESSION OF ONE BETHAK AND ONE ROOM ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND ONE BARSATI IN H. NO. 36 WHEREAS THE FAMILY OF THE PETITIONER COMPRISES OF WIDOW AKILA KHATOON, MARRIED SON HAVING HIS WIFE AND THREE CHILDREN, ONE UNMARRIED SON AGED ABOUT 32 YRS. , TWO UNMARRIED DAUGHTERS, BOTH MAJOR AND FOUR MARRIED DAUGHTERS. THEY ALSO OCCASIONALLY VISIT THE PETR. , THEREFORE, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PETITIONER IS ONE BED ROOM FOR THE WIDOW, TWO BED ROOMS FOR THE MARRIED SON AND HIS FAMILY, ONE BED ROOM FOR THE UNMARRIED SON, ONE BED ROOM EACH FOR TWO UNMARRIED DAUGHTERS AS BOTH ARE MAJOR AND ONE ROOM TO ACCOMMODATE THE VISITING DAUGHTERS AND ONE ROOM FOR ACCOMMODATING THE VISITORS AS IT IS A MOHAMMADAN FAMILY, THEREFORE, REQUIREMENT OF THE PETR. IS 6 BED ROOMS BESIDES A ROOM TO ACCOMMODATE THE MARRIED DAUGHTERS AT THE TIME OF THEIR VISIT AND ONE ROOM TO ACCOMMODATE THE VISITORS. THE SITE PLAN PLACED ON RECORD SHOWS THAT THEY ARE IN POSSESSION OF ONLY TWO ROOMS AND BARSATI WHICH, IN MY OPINION, IS HIGHLY INSUFFICIENT AND THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PETR. IS MOST BONA FIDE AND JUSTIFIED. ( 6 ) FROM THE ABOVE, I SEE NO REASON WHY THIS COURT SHOULD INTERFERE. THE REASONING IS SOUND AND I CONCUR WITH THE SAME. IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF PLACE HERE TO MENTION THAT THE SCOPE OF THE REVISION PETITION HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN SHIV SARUP GUPTA VS. DR. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA AIR 1999 SC 2507 . ( 7 ) ON THE QUESTION OF ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION, THE MATTER HAS BEEN DISCUSSED THREADBARE BY THE LEARNED CONTROLLER. ON A PERUSAL OF THE SAME I FIND THAT THE SAME SUFFERS FROM NO INFIRMITY. DR. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA AIR 1999 SC 2507 . ( 7 ) ON THE QUESTION OF ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION, THE MATTER HAS BEEN DISCUSSED THREADBARE BY THE LEARNED CONTROLLER. ON A PERUSAL OF THE SAME I FIND THAT THE SAME SUFFERS FROM NO INFIRMITY. ACCORDINGLY, I UPHOLD THE JUDGMENT OF THE CONTROLLER DATED 7. 5. 2002 IN E-63/2002 AND DISMISS RC-REV. 1177 OF 2002 AND C. M. APPL. 2502 OF 2002. INTERIM ORDER IS VACATED. NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.