Delhi High Court
Zubiar vs Amiruddin on 27 January, 2020
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.01.2020
+ RC.REV. 242/2017
ZUBIAR ..... Petitioner
versus
AMIRUDDIN ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.S. Ahluwalia and Mr. Mohit, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Kapoor, Advocate
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 18.01.2017, whereby eviction
petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and eviction order
passed.
2. Subject eviction petition was filed by the respondent seeking
eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bonafide necessity under
Section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in respect of
tenanted premises i.e. one room along with bathroom and toilet on the
second floor of property bearing No. 2335, Gali Dugdugi Shah,
Turkman Gate, Delhi, more particularly as shown in red colour in the
site plan annexed with the eviction petition (Ex. PW1/1).
3. The contention of the respondent-landlord in the eviction
petition was that the family of the respondent-landlord is very large
and is dependent upon the respondent. It is contended that the two
sons of the respondent are major and are likely to be married very
soon. Besides this there are other school going children who required
study room.
4. The need was expressed for accommodating the respondent and
his family who were dependent upon him for the purposes of
residence. It was contended that besides the said property he has no
other accommodation in his possession. Further the contention of the
respondent had been that son of respondent was using three rooms on
the ground floor as a godown for storing handicrafts.
5. Rent Controller in the eviction petition has noticed that
respondent has 11 family members out of which two daughters had
got married but they used to visit the respondent from time to time
along with their families. Besides, two married daughters, family of
respondent comprises of nine family members out of which two sons
were married and there were also school going children.
6. With regard to the contention of the respondent that three
rooms on the ground floor which were being used as godown storing
articles belonging to the business of son of the respondent, during trial
a Local Commissioner was appointed to inspect the said property.
7. Local Commissioner has given a report that no commercial
activity was being carried out in the three rooms. The photographs
filed by the Local Commissioner showed that though some articles
were kept on the ground floor portion but the ground floor were not
full of handicraft articles as contended by the respondent.
8. Based on the report of the Local Commissioner, Rent
Controller came to the conclusion that the three rooms on the ground
floor were not being used for commercial purposes and were available
to the respondent for residential purposes.
9. The Rent Controller held that even if three rooms on the ground
floor were taken into account, there were only four more rooms
available for the Respondent. Three on the first floor and one room on
the second floor.
10. Accordingly, Rent Controller came to the conclusion that only
seven rooms were available to the respondent and his family of nine
members, besides the two married daughters of the respondent, who
used to visit the respondent from time to time. Based on this, Rent
Controller came to the conclusion that the accommodation in
possession of the respondent was short and accordingly plea of the
respondent that he bonafidely required the tenanted premises for his as
well as his family residence was found to be genuine.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show
that besides those seven rooms, which the Rent Controller has held are
available, that there is any other accommodation available to the
respondent. Petitioner has also not been able to dispute the number of
family members of the respondent.
12. The only arguments raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that respondent had incorrectly stated that the rooms on the
ground floor were being used for commercial purposes.
13. Perusal of the report of the Local Commissioner shows that
Local Commissioner has annexed photographs of the ground floor
portion, which show storage of several articles lying on the ground
floor. The Local Commissioner report contends that no commercial
activity is seen on the ground floor, however, there is no dispute that
there were articles kept on the ground floor which were relating to the
business of the son of the respondent.
14. Be that as it may, even if three rooms on the ground floor are
available to the respondent, said three rooms taken in conjunction
with the four others rooms would still not satisfy the need of the
respondent and his family comprising of nine members, for the
purpose of their residence.
15. Petitioner has not been able to show that the finding returned by
the Rent Controller that accommodation available with the respondent
is short and does not satisfy the need of the entire family is erroneous.
Even otherwise the site plan of the property shows that the sizes of
some of the available rooms is about 8 x 8 ft.
16. Petitioner has not been able to show any infirmity in the view
taken by the Rent Controller in returning the finding that the need as
expressed by the respondent is bonafide or that there is any other
suitable alternative accommodation available with the respondent.
17. I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Rent Controller and
any merit in the petition.
18. For the purposes of record, it may also be noticed that
respondent had already executed the order and received possession of
the tenanted premises through warrants of possession on 26.4.2017.
19. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
20. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 27, 2020
'rs'
