Sakeena Begum & Ors vs Miraj Ahmed
2012 Latest Caselaw 2094 Del

$~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

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.

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

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

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

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