Salamatullah vs Shama Parveen & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 2346 Del

$
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                 RC.REV. 36/2015 AND CM No.1098/2015 (Stay)
%                                            Decided on: 19th March, 2015
        SALAMATULLAH                                      ..... Petitioner
                   Through:              Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate.

                            versus

    SHAMA PARVEEN & ORS                                     ..... Respondents

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J (ORAL)

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 17th September, 2014 whereby the leave to defend was granted to the Respondents in an eviction petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, 1958 (in short „the DRC Act‟), the Petitioner prefers the present petition.

2. The sole ground urged by the Petitioner before this Court is that the Petitioner requires the tenanted premises bona fidely for himself and his younger son and the other properties as informed by the Respondents are owned by the other sons of the Petitioner on which the Petitioner or the younger son have no control.

3. A perusal of the eviction petition would show that the Petitioner has sought the eviction of the premises for his personal use as residence. In Para- 8 it is stated "that property is otherwise required by the Petitioner for his personal use of residence as with the passage of time the family members of Petitioner have increased to a great extent." In Para-9 the Petitioner further

stated "that the Petitioner is an old man of about 80 years of age and requires the property under the tenancy of the Respondents bona-fidely for himself and for his family‟s personal use so that he can live therein along with his family freely without feeling any guilt of the lack of accommodation." Though the family of the Petitioner is large and he had disclosed that he has four properties, that is, 874, 873, 794 and 795 wherein they have eight rooms however, the Respondents pointed out that besides these properties other properties are in Fayaz Ganj and Nawab Ganj and Azad Market giving the numbers of the properties.

4. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that in view of the number of properties being available, no perversity can be attributed to the impugned order granting leave to defend.

5. Petition and application are dismissed.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE MARCH 19, 2015 'vn'