Delhi High Court
Smt Sharifan & Ors vs Sh Abdul Hamid & Ors on 20 February, 2015
Author: Mukta Gupta
11# $
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 377/2013
% Decided on: 20th February, 2015
SMT SHARIFAN & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Nawabuddin, Mr. Bipin Kumar
Jha and Mr. Mohd. Adeel Siddiqui,
Advocates.
versus
SH ABDUL HAMID & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Raina, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL)
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 6th June, 2013, whereby the leave to
defend application filed by the Petitioners in an eviction petition under
Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC
Act') was dismissed, the Petitioners prefer the present petition.
2. In the eviction petition, the Respondents stated that the tenanted
premises, that is, one room, one common veranda, one common bathroom in
property No.2431, Ground Floor, Gali -M. Abdul Qadeer, G.B. Road, Delhi-
6 (in short 'the suit property') was let out to one Mohd.Yusuf at a monthly
rent of Rs.10/- excluding other charges and after the death of Mohd.Yusuf
the Petitioners became the joint tenants. The suit property was purchased by
the grandfather of the Respondents vide Sale Deed in December, 1931 and
after his death the property devolved on the father of the Respondents
namely late Mohd. Ramzan. Further after the death of Mohd. Ramzan, the
other legal heirs relinquished their rights in favour of the Respondents vide
Relinquishment Deed dated 6th May, 2005. Thus the Respondents as the co-
owners and landlord of the tenanted premises sought eviction of the
Petitioners. It was stated that the Respondents have a large family and the
accommodation available was insufficient. The Respondent No.4 had six
children who were staying in two rooms in property No.2488, Street Katra
Rajji, behind G.B. Road, Delhi-6. The youngest son and youngest daughter
of Respondent No.3 were of marriageable age and there was acute shortage
of accommodation. Further Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 were having only
one room for their occupation.
3. In the leave to defend application, the main ground urged by the
Petitioners was that the Respondents were neither the owners nor the
landlord of the tenanted premises as the same belonged to Slum and JJ
Department/Custodian Department where the rent used to be deposited by
Mohd. Yusuf and a FIR No.760 was also lodged at PS Kamla Market, Delhi
against the Respondents in this regard. The Respondents had no connection
with Allah Baksh who had migrated to Pakistan and the property was thus an
evacuee property.
4. Even before this Court this is the sole ground urged that the
Respondents are not the owners/landlords of the premises and thus no
eviction order could be passed in favour of the Respondents by the learned
ARC. The Petitioners have placed on record documents to show that they
had been paying the rent/license fee to the Slum and JJ Department since
long and RTI reply dated 29th December, 2009 shows that the suit property
was under the management and control of Slum and JJ Department, MCD
w.e.f. 1st December, 1962.
5. In response to the leave to defend application the Respondents placed
on record a letter of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner-cum-Managing
Officer, Evacuee Property stating that the suit property has been held to be
not an evacuee property. The Respondent placed on record the photocopy of
the Sale Deed dated 11th December, 1931 in favour of Allah Baksh and a
copy of the detailed order dated 30th July, 1980 passed by the Assistant
Custodian (Judicial), Jaisalmer House, New Delhi wherein after looking into
the evidence and examining the documents the Assistant Custodian
(Judicial) came to the conclusion that the suit property belonged to Shri
Allah Baksh as a result of purchase through Sale Deed dated 11 th December,
1931 and he was not an evacuee and it cannot be taken over or deemed to
have been taken over as an evacuee property under automatic vesting. This
order was also enclosed with the clarificatory letter dated 14th March, 2011.
6. Thus in view of the finding of the Competent Authority that the suit
property was not an evacuee property and was purchased by Allah Baksh in
December, 1931 and the Respondents having placed on record the
Relinquishment Deed executed by the other legal heirs there is no error in
the order of the learned ARC coming to the conclusion that no triable issue
was raised and hence the leave to defend application was declined.
7. In view of the facts noted above and the clarification issued by the
Assistant Settlement Commissioner vide its letter dated 14th March, 2011
along with the order dated 30th July, 1980 it was rightly held that the
Respondents were the owners/landlord and no case for leave to defend was
made out. There being no illegality or perversity in the impugned order
warranting interference the present petition is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 20, 2015
'vn'
