Delhi High Court
Irfan Ul Haq & Ors. vs Mohd. Ikram & Ors. on 1 October, 2019
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 01.10.2019
+ RC.REV. 410/2019
IRFAN UL HAQ & ORS ..... Petitioners
versus
MOHD IKRAM & ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr.S.D.Ansari and Mr.I.Ahmad, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr.Sunil Dutt Dixit, Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL.30570/2019 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CAV 681/2019
Learned counsel for the respondent/caveator has entered
appearance. Caveat stands discharged.
RC.REV. 410/2019 & CM APPL.30569/2019
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 02.04.2019, whereby, leave to
defend application of the petitioner has been dismissed and an
eviction order passed.
2. Respondent had filed the subject eviction petition seeking
eviction of the petitioner from first floor of property bearing No.882,
Ward- Xl, Gali Farshwali, Haveli Asam Khan, Bazar Chitli Qabar,
Jama Masjid, Delhi- 110006 on the ground of bonafide necessity
under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
3. The respondent had claimed eviction of the petitioner on the
ground that their family comprises of the respondent, his wife,
daughter and two sons and they are residing on the ground floor of the
subject property which consists of only two rooms and the
accommodation in their possession is insufficient for their
requirement and they bonafidely require the tenanted premises.
4. Leave to defend application was filed by the petitioners inter-
alia disputing the ownership of the respondent besides disputing the
bonafide need.
5. It is contended in the leave to defend application that the
property was taken on rent by the petitioners from one Mohd.Siddique
and the family of Mohd.Siddique comprised of himself and his wife
Smt.Ahmad Bi and Mohd. Siddique died in the year 1970 and
Smt.Ahmad Bi pre deceased him and they left no issue. It is
contended that thereafter no one has ever claimed
landlordship/ownership of the property and rent has not been paid by
the petitioners to any other person.
6. The respondents/landlords have claimed ownership based on a
sale deed dated 16.02.1983. As per the sale deed property had been
purchased from Mohd.Ikram who claims that the property was gifted
to him by one Mohd.Ajmal and Sheikh Rais Ahmad according to
Muslim Personal law and the title of Mohd.Ajmal was established by
a decree of a Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no connection
has been shown by the respondent landlord between Mohd.Ajmal and
Mohd.Siddique or Ahmad Bi and as such the sale deed does not
confer title on the respondent.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that Mohd.Ajmal
was a nephew of Ahmad Bi and as such succeeded to the subject
property and his rights were established by an Arbitration award
which was made Rule of the Court by the concerned Court.
9. He, however, concedes that as of now the respondents do not
have the relevant documents of the Suit or the award and the same can
be produced after obtaining the same from the Registry of the Court.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent without prejudice submits
that without admitting the grounds in the leave to defend, as the
respondents have to acquire the documents from the Court and
produce the same before the Rent Controller, leave may be granted to
the petitioner subject to the condition that the Rent Controller be
directed to expedite the hearing of the proceedings.
11. In view of the above and also in view of the fact that the
respondents would be required to establish their title before the Rent
Controller and the said issue besides other raised a triable issue, the
impugned order dated 02.04.2019 is set aside.
12. Leave is granted to the petitioner.
13. List the petition before the concerned Rent Controller on
08.11.2019. Petitioners shall file their written statements before the
Rent Controller on the said date.
14. Rent Controller is directed to expedite the proceedings and
endeavour to conclude the same within a period of nine months from
the next date before the Rent Controller.
15. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
16. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
OCTOBER 01, 2019
rk
