Delhi High Court
Mohd.Illyas vs Nooruddin And Ors. on 15 November, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 15.11.2011
+ R.C.R. No.133/2011 & CM Nos. 8362/2011 & 12858/2011
MOHD.ILLYAS ...........Appellant
Through: Mr.Vijay Tandon, Advocate.
Versus
NOORUDDIN AND ORS. ..........Respondent
Through: Respondent no.1 in person.
Mr.Puneet Aggarwal, Advocate
for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. Order impugned before this Court is the order dated
19.01.2011 vide which the application for leave to defend filed by
the tenant Mohd. Illyas in a pending petition under Section
14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act') had been dismissed.
2. The premises are a suit shop i.e. no. 3865/3, ground floor, a
part of property no.3865, Ward No.XI, Khirki Tafazzal Hussain,
Darya Ganj, Delhi. H. Zahiruddin Ahemad was the owner and
landlord of the premises who had tenanted them out to the tenant
namely Mohd. Illyas in the year 1960; rate of rent is `200/-
excluding electricity and water charges. After the death of the
original landlord, the present petitioner had inherited this
property and since that period i.e. since 29.9.1977 is realizing the
rent of the suit premises from the tenant. In the eviction petition
the grounds of bonafide requirement have been pleaded ; it is
stated that the petitioners (three in number) have no other
reasonably suitable residential and commercial accommodation
with them. They have a large family and the details have been
described. Petitioner no.1 has a family comprising of himself, his
wife and one married son, a grandson and four daughters. He is
residing on the first floor; the premises in dispute which
comprises of a shop on the ground floor (6 feet x 12 feet) is
suitable for him for his accommodation; petitioner no.2 is the
other brother of petitioner no.1. It is contended that his family is
also large and this shop is also suitable for his residential and
commercial welfare; so also is submission qua the petitioner no.3.
3. In the application for leave to defend filed by the tenant it
has been alleged that the shop in question is very small measuring
6 feet x 12 feet i.e. having an area of 72 sq. feet which is neither
suitable for commercial and nor for a residential purpose; a
double bed would also not fit in there. The triable issue sought to
be raised by the petitioner is that the landlord has not approached
the court with clean hands; he has a huge property measuring
about 300 sq, yards at 5310, Sadar Bazar, Delhi which can be fit
for the needs of the respondents; this factum has deliberately
been concealed. In the reply to this corresponding para of the
application for leave to defend this factum has not been disputed,
however, it is baldly denied that the area is 300 sq. yards; the
measurement of the said property has, however, not been
disclosed. Submission of the petitioner that this factum of the
concealment of this fact as also the area which is in possession of
the landlord not having been disclosed, contention of the tenant
being that a reasonably suitable accommodation is available with
the respondents and this has raised a triable issue.
4. This submission of the petitioner has force. Present case
has thus raised a triable issue. The application for leave to defend
has been dismissed summarily; impugned order is accordingly set
aside. Parties to appear before the Rent Controller on 28.11.2011,
who shall proceed to deal the case on its merits.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
NOVEMBER 15, 2011
nandan
