IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

R.C.REV.428/18

Judgment reserved on : 19.09.2018

Date of decision : 4.6.2021

LATE MOHD. AHMED (DECEASED) THR LRS.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr.S.I.Israily, Advocate.

Versus

LATE MAIRAJ AHMAD (DECEASED) THR LRS ..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA

JUDGMENT

ANU MALHOTRA, J.

1.

The petitioners, the legal heirs of Late Mohd. Sharif vide the present

revision petition under Section 25(B)(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as

amended, have assailed the judgment dated 20.3.2018 of the learned Additional

Rent Controller-I, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts in Eviction Petition No.

M-18/12 bearing initial No. E-222/88 whereby the eviction petition under

Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958,

filed by the petitioner of that eviction petition Sh.Mairaj Ahmad, since

represented by his legal representatives, now arrayed on record as the

respondents to the present petition, was allowed in relation to the tenanted

premises, i.e., the ground floor of property bearing No. 848, Gali Godonwali,

Haveli Azamkhan, Bazar Chitli Qabar, Jama Masjid, Delhi-110006, shown in

the site plan filed by the petitioner of the eviction petition Ex.1/16 with it

having been directed by the learned Additional Rent Controller-1 Central

District, that the landlord would not be entitled to obtain possession thereof

Digitally Signed

By:SUMIT GHAI

Signing Date:05.06.2021

17:47

Signature Not Verified

before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of the said order

i.e., 20.3.2018.

2.

The said eviction petition was filed by Sh. Miraj Ahmad on 15.9.1988

contending to the effect that he was the owner and landlord of the tenanted

premises which had been purchased by him in the year 1965. It had been the

contention of the petitioner of the eviction petition that he had a large joint

family comprising of 18 persons and that he himself had been living in a

tenanted premises bearing No.2222, Kucha Chelan, Darya Ganj, Delhi with two

rooms apart from a latrine, bathroom and kitchen which premises was

insufficient and not suitable for his large family and as well as for relatives who

visited him for whom there was no place to stay even for a couple of days. It

was the contention of the petitioner of the eviction petition that he had no other

reasonably suitable accommodation and thus sought the eviction of the

respondents to the eviction petition, now arrayed as petitioners to the present

revision petition, i.e., R.C.Rev. no.428/2018.

3.

Though the respondent to the eviction petition had sought to contend that

he had become the owner of the tenanted premises by prescription and adverse

possession and that the petitioner of the eviction petition had other properties

available which could be used by him for residence and though the respondent

had also denied that the petitioner had as many family member that he had

sought to contend vide order dated 20.5.2000 of the learned Additional Rent

Controller in E-222/88 filed by the petitioner thereof, since represented in the

present petition as heirs as respondent, was allowed with it having been

observed by the learned Additional Rent Controller that certificate of sale of the

property in question by Sh. Girdhari Lal to Sh. Miraj Ahmad as issued by the

Managing Officer/ Assistant Custodian, office of the Regional Settlement

Commissioner, New Delhi, dated 17.2.1964 had not been controverted and

remained unchallenged and was thus deemed to have been admitted as correct

and in as much as that certificate Mark „A‟ had been addressed to Sh. Girdhari

Digitally Signed

By:SUMIT GHAI

Signing Date:05.06.2021

17:47

Signature Not Verified

Lal. The said document Mark „A‟ had been produced from, proper custody.

Furthermore, the learned Additional Rent Controller observed to the effect that

in term