Delhi High Court
Shamshad Ali vs Mukhtiar Begum on 22 April, 2015
$
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 345/2015
% Decided on: 22nd April, 2015
SHAMSHAD ALI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate.
versus
MUKHTIAR BEGUM ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL)
CM No. 7413/2015 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM(M) 345/2015 and CM No. 7412/2015 (Stay)
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 28th February, 2015 dismissing the
appeal of the Petitioner Shamshad Ali against the order of the learned ARC
dated 13th December, 2013 dismissing his objections in Execution No.
41/2013, the Petitioner files the present petition.
2. Eviction petition was filed by Mukhtar Begum against Hamid Ali
stating that Hamid Ali was a tenant in two rooms, open space and latrine in
property bearing No. 1861, Suiwala Bazar, Gali Pattewali, Delhi-110006 (in
short 'the tenanted premises') on a rent of Rs.100/- per month excluding
other charges. It was stated that Shri Raees Ullaha, husband of Mukhtar
Begum was the absolute owner of Property No. 1861, Suiwala Bazar (in
short 'the suit property') having purchased the same vide registered Sale
Deed dated 25th May, 1973 and 3rd December, 1981. Raees Ullah executed a
Will in his lifetime and thus Mukhtar Begum became the absolute owner of
the suit property. The eviction petition was filed for the bona fide
requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in
short 'the DRC Act') due to the growing needs of the family of Mukhtar
Begum which comprises of four sons and three daughters, two of whom
were unmarried. It was further stated that Hamid Ali had sub-let the
property or otherwise parted with the possession without the knowledge and
consent of the landlord and was not living in the premises in question and
had shifted to 1474, Chowk Sui Wallan, Delhi-110006. No leave to defend
was granted to Hamid Ali and an eviction order was passed vide order dated
6th December, 2012.
3. In the meantime, Hamid Ali expired and his Legal Heirs filed a
revision petition being R.C. Revision No. 18/2013 before this Court
challenging the eviction order dated 6th December, 2012, which was
dismissed on 4th April, 2013. Thereafter, Mukhtar Begum filed an execution
petition wherein objections were filed by Shamshad Ali. In the objection
petition Shamshad Ali stated that he along with his brother Irshad Ali were
in exclusive, physical possession of two rooms set with open space in the
ground floor of the suit property, that is, the tenanted premises. The LRs of
the judgment Debtor Hamid Ali were not in possession of any portion of the
tenanted premises. The Decree Holder invoked wrong provision of law, that
is, bona fide requirement to seek eviction. The ownership of the Decree
Holder was disputed.
4. Vide order dated 13th December, 2013, the learned ARC dealing with
the objections held that in the objection petition Shamshad Ali admitted that
he and his family members were in possession of the tenanted premises as
per mutual family settlement and the family of the objector was in
occupation since last many years. No details of the family settlement have
been given. A finding of landlord tenant relationship in respect of the
Decree Holder and Judgment Debtor was returned which has been upheld by
this Court. Once the relationship of the landlord-tenant between the Decree
Holder and the Judgment Debtor was established a third party has no locus
to challenge either the eviction order or its execution.
5. Against the order dated 13th December, 2013 Shamshad Ali filed an
appeal before the learned Rent Control Tribunal which also upheld the order
of the learned ARC and it was held that even assuming Shamshad Ali
succeeded to the tenancy rights of Hamid Ali on the demise of their father,
Shamshad Ali was well represented before the learned ARC and the legal
heirs of the original tenant succeeded to the tenancy as the joint tenants and
not as tenants in common.
6. Before this Court Shamshad Ali reiterates the same claim and states
that he and his brother Irshad Ali were in exclusive possession of the
tenanted premises and Hamid Ali and legal heirs were not residing in the
premises. This fact has been disclosed by Mukhtar Begum in her eviction
petition itself. There is no claim in the objection petition as to how
Shamshad Ali entered the premises. Shamshad Ali merely denies the title of
husband of Mukhtar Begum stating that Shri Wazirullah was not the landlord
of the premises. He had no title in his favour. In fact the husband of Mukhtar
Begum was known as Raees Ullah and in the eviction petition Mukhtar
Begum fortified her claim to the ownership of the tenanted premises on the
basis of the Sale Deeds executed in faovur of her husband and subsequently
a Will executed in favour of Mukhtar Begum which were all registered
documents. Hence I find no merit in the petition.
7. Petition and application are dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
APRIL 22, 2015
'vn'
