J U D G M E N T

NAJMI WAZIRI, J RC.REV. 367/2018 & CM Nos. 13453/2023 & 22041/2023

1. By this revision petition, the petitioner/landlord impugns the dismissal of his eviction petition bearing No. RE-23/15, against the respondent/tenant by the judgment dated 07.06.2018 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller-I (ARC), Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.

2. Eviction of the tenant was sought under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 („DRC Act‟) on the ground that: (i) the tenanted premises was required for bonafide use by the landlord and his dependant family members for business purposes, (ii) they had no suitable alternate accommodation available, (iii) the landlord‟s two married daughters were unemployed but they were well educated and had commercial aspirations, therefore the bonafide need for space, for which they were dependent upon their father-the petitioner. The elder daughter: Ms. Sufia Ikhlas is a graduate from Lady Sri Ram College and the younger daughter: Dr. Noris Nisar has an MBA degree and has earned a Ph.D too. The petitioner says that he is a senior citizen and suffers from many ailments: he has had a brain- hemorrhage, has neurological problems; is hypertensive; has difficulty in climbing stairs because his knee joints are not functioning well, therefore, there was a need for him to conduct his business from the ground floor.

3. The petitioner is Mutawalli of a Wakf-ul-aulad which includes the tenanted premises: being Shop no. 1344 (Ground Floor), Star Building, Qutab Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi – 110006 (Suit Property). The eviction petition apropos the said property was initiated on 24.07.2009. It was first dismissed by an order of the learned ARC on 26.05.2011 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The said order‟s dismissal was impugned before this court in RC.Rev. 377/2011 and was set aside by order dated 11.02.2015. The case was remanded to the learned ARC for determination on the aspect of bonafide requirement and to consider the application for leave to defend. A SLP bearing No. 13204/2015 against the order dated 11.02.2015 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on

07.05.2015.

4. Leave to defend was granted to the tenant; evidence was led. The eviction petition was dismissed primarily on the ground that bonafide requirement had not been established. The petitioner submits that the said impugned dismissal is erroneous, both on facts and in law; it suffers from material irregularity and patent illegality, therefore, it is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this court.

5. At the outset, the respondent has questioned the maintainability of the eviction petition before the learned ARC on the ground that under section 83 of the Wakf Act, 1995 only the Wakf Tribunal had jurisdiction to deal with matters relating to eviction of a tenant of a Wakf property, section 85 of the said Act bars jurisdiction of other courts in respect of the matters which the Wakf Tribunal is empowered to decide, therefore, the eviction petition could not have been decided or entertained by the learned ARC. Reliance is placed by the respondent upon the following judgments: Rashid Wali Beg vs Farid Pindari (2022) 4 SCC 414; Syed Amir Ali vs Anjuman-e-Maidan [CM(M) 521/2021 decided on 02.12.2021 by High Court of Delhi; and Mehnish Adil vs Delhi Wakf Board 2002 (286) DLT 654.

6. Refuting the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Gobindram vs Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf (2010) 8 SCC 726, which while dealing with an eviction petition prior to the amendment of section 83 of the Wakf Act in November, 2013 held that an eviction petition against a Wakf property would also be maintainable before a Civil Court. In Rashid Wali (supra) the Supreme Court held as under:

“….45. Interestingly, the basis of the decision in Ramesh Gobindram was removed through an amendment under Act 27 of 2013. As we have stated elsewhere, Ramesh Gobindram sou