Zulfiquar Hussain & Ors. vs Mst. Hassan Fatima
2012 Latest Caselaw 5473 Del

*           THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          R.C.REV. 465/2012

                                         Date of Decision: 12.09.2012

ZULFIQUAR HUSSAIN & ORS.                             ...... Petitioners
                Through:                 Mr. Shalabh Gupta, Adv.

                                Versus

MST. HASSAN FATIMA                                 ...... Respondent
                 Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') impugns the order and judgment dated 24.3.2012, whereby the eviction petition being 264/2008, filed by the respondent, seeking eviction of the petitioner, was allowed, and consequently, the eviction order was passed against the petitioner.

2. The petitioners are the tenants under the respondent in respect of one room, one store, latrine, kitchen, bath and open courtyard in property bearing No. 18, Ganesh Park, Rashid Market, Delhi. It is however alleged by the respondent/landlord that the petitioners have also constructed one room unauthorizedly in the suit premises. The

eviction of the petitioners was sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the respondent for herself and her family members. The respondent's case is that she is in possession of premises comprising of two rooms, one verandah, one scooter garage and one small kitchen, bath and latrine in property No. 38, Hathi Khana, Bahadur Garh Road, Delhi, and which accommodation is highly insufficient for her and her family members. Her family members consisted of herself, two married sons, their wives and children and one unmarried son aged about 28 years. The petitioner also has two married daughters, out of whom, one daughter alongwith her daughter aged 18 years, is also residing with her. It is averred that the married daughters also visit and stay with her along with her family. It is averred that she does not have any drawing room, dining room, guest room, bathroom, study room, and therefore, now, she intends to shift to the suit premises along with her younger son.

3. It is disputed that the respondent's major sons are dependent upon her financially or for accommodation purposes. After the grant of leave to defend, the petitioners filed written statement wherein they have disputed the bona fide requirement of the respondent. They have also disputed the ownership of the respondent of the suit premises. The present accommodation with the respondent was alleged to be of six rooms with other amenities

and thus, sufficient for her and other family members dependent upon her.

4. The parties led their evidence before the ARC. The respondent examined herself as PW1 and the petitioners examined themselves as RW1, RW2 and RW3. On the appreciation of the testimonies of the witnesses, and the material available on record, the learned ARC recorded the respondent having proved the bona fide requirement of the suit premises, and consequently, passed eviction order against the petitioners. This judgment and order is assailed by the petitioners in the instant petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record and the impugned judgment. On being asked, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. He, however, made all those submissions which were made before the ARC, and which have been considered by him. His main submission is that the present accommodation with the respondent in property No. 38, Hathi Khana, Bahadur Garh Road comprised of six rooms on the ground floor, and which is quite sufficient for the respondent and her family members. This is also his submission that the suit premises being situated at far away place, and being a small room only, was not at all useable for the residence of the respondent for herself or for her any other family member. Taking me through the site plan of

property No. 38, Hathi Khana, Bahadur Garh Road, the learned counsel tried to demonstrate that the accommodation shown as scooter garage and office, could be used for residence by the respondent.

6. Having a look at the site plan, which is not disputed, would show that there are only two regular rooms therein. The accommodations shown as scooter garage and office measure less than 80 sq. ft. each. This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He, however, stated that the suit premises was also about 100 sq. ft. and would not be sufficient for using as residential room. This was an extraneous contention that was sought to be raised by the learned counsel. It is not disputed that the accommodation shown as scooter garage and office was in fact being used for these purposes by the respondent and her family members. The accommodation available with the respondent is only two regular rooms and the rest of it is of verandah, tin shed- workshop, store, courtyard, passage, kitchen etc. The number of family members of the respondent are not in dispute that two sons are married and one son is of marriageable age. The married sons also have children. Beside, the respondent also has two married daughters and one of whom, along with her daughter, has been residing with the respondent, and were thus, to be taken as her family members dependent upon her. The learned ARC rightly observed that by any logic, present accommodation available with

the respondent, cannot be said to be sufficient for the residential requirement for her and for her family members.

7. The plea of the petitioners that the suit premises was at far away place and, would not be used by the respondent, is utterly untenable. The respondent's case has been that due to paucity of accommodation, she intends to shift to the suit premises along with her unmarried son. There does not appear to be any element of doubt in the bona fide requirement of respondent of the suit premises for herself and her son. In view of all this, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the ARC. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

SEPTEMBER 12, 2012/akb