$~A-18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Judgment: 27.03.2012
+ C.R.P. 962/2000
SAKEENA BEGUM & ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.M.Mohsin Israily, Advocate.
versus
MIRAJ AHMED ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.G.K.Srivastva, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. Order impugned is the order dated 20.5.2000. The petition filed by the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the DRCA) seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement had been decreed.
2. Record shows that the present eviction has been filed by the landlord Miraj Ahmed against the legal representatives of his original tenant who was Mohd.Sharif. This eviction petition had been filed in CRP No.962/2000 Page 1 of 6 September 1988. The tenanted premises have been described as House No.848, Gali Godonwali Haveli Azamkhan, Bazar Chitli Qabar, Jamamasjid, Delhi consisting of two rooms, one kothri, one latrine with an open court yard an unauthorized room had also been constructed by the tenant (as depicted in red colour in the site plan). Premises were required bonafide by the petitioner for his own need and for the need of his family members. Contention in the eviction petition was that the petitioner has a large joint family comprising of himself, his wife, his aged parents, five married sons, daughters-in-law, two married daughters, two sons-in-law and grandchildren. The accommodation presently available with them is insufficient. He is living in a rented accommodation at 2222, Kucha Chelan, Daryaganj, Delhi where he is in accommodation of two rooms; one room on the ground floor and one room on the first floor; there is one latrine, bath room and kitchen. This accommodation is not sufficient for him and for the family members who are dependent upon him.
3. Written statement was filed disputing these contentions. It was denied that the premises had been let out for residential purpose; it was denied that the premises is requirement by the landlord bonafide. CRP No.962/2000 Page 2 of 6
4. Oral and documentary evidence was led.
5. ARC had returned a positive finding that the premises had been let out for a residential purpose. The family members of the petitioner were considered. The ration cards Ex.PW-1/17A to Ex. PW-1/17C issued in the name of the petitioner and ration card Ex.PW-1/18A to 18C issued in the name of his son were considered; the ration cards Ex. PW-1/19A to 19C and Ex.PW-1/21A to 21C as also Ex.PW-1/22A to 22C evidenced that the petitioner was living in the rented accommodation along with his wife and five married sons; family of the each married sons having children required a minimum of two rooms; as also their need for a guest room/drawing/dining room; need of the petitioner was defined as 12 rooms by the ARC. Contention of the tenant that this accommodation at Kucha Chelan, Daryaganj is not a rented accommodation and in fact is owned by him was negatived by the rent receipts Ex.PW-1/2 to Ex.PW-1/14 qua this premises i.e. house No.2222, Kucha Chelan, Daryaganj, Delhi. These documents had not been challenged in the cross-examination of PW-1; thus substantiating the submission of the landlord that these premises were a tenanted accommodation and he has no other reasonable accommodation. The CRP No.962/2000 Page 3 of 6 defence raised by the tenant that the landlord has another premises at Zakir Nagar, New Delhi was also negatived; no details of the said property; even its number had been given. This position had even otherwise been vehemently denied by the landlord; so also was the position qua property no.238, Kucha Chelan, Daryaganj Delhi and property no.830 and 853 Haveli Azam Khan, Bazar Chitli Qabar, Delhi. There was a categorical denial by the landlord qua the ownership of these properties. No counter document could be produced by the tenant to establish this defence which he had sought to set up. On these findings the ARC had decreed the eviction petition filed by the landlord. CM No.9096/2004 (for additional evidence)
6. This is an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) filed by the petitioner seeking permission of this Court to adduce additional evidence; the details of the documents sought to be proved by the petitioner are detailed in para 11 of the said application. Contention is that these are public documents and inadvertently they could not be produced in the trial court; in case the documents are permitted to be proved and brought on record they would establish the submission made CRP No.962/2000 Page 4 of 6 by the petitioner that he is in hostile possession of the suit premises since the last 18 years.
7. Reply has been filed opposing this application. CM No.13435/2004 (for additional evidence)
8. This is an application filed by the respondent/owner/landlord of the suit property; he also seeks permission of the court to produce additional evidence; details of which find mention in para 3 of his application; in para 4 of his application an affidavit purported to have been given by Mohd.Sharif (husband of Sakeena Begum) is also purported to be filed by way of additional evidence. Contention being that in this affidavit Mohd. Sharif had admitted relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Reply has been filed opposing this application.
9. After some arguments, it has been agreed that both the aforenoted application filed by the respective parties be allowed and the parties be permitted to adduce additional evidence before the trial court in terms of the averments made in their respective applications as aforenoted.
10. Impugned order is accordingly set aside; the matter is remanded back. Parties are directed to appear before Rent Controller, Centre CRP No.962/2000 Page 5 of 6 District, Tees Hazari Court, New Delhi on 12.4.2012 who shall assign this case to the concerned ARC.
11. Since the matter is very old pertaining to the year 1988, the ARC shall endeavor to dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible and preferably within an outer limit of eight months from the date of the receipt of this order.
12. With these directions petition is disposed of.
INDERMEET KAUR, J MARCH 27, 2012 nandan CRP No.962/2000 Page 6 of 6