HARSH KUMAR Vs. MAN MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned judgment is dated 27.8.2011; application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend had been dismissed; eviction petition filed by the landlord had been decreed. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement; the premises in dispute is one room, kitchen WC on the first floor (as depicted in red colour in the site plan attached) which has been tenanted out to the tenant @ '12.12 per month exclusive of electricity charges. The present eviction petition has been filed on the ground that the premises are required bonafide by the landlord; the family of the landlord consists of himself, his wife and their two grown up children. They are presently in occupation of one room, baithak, WC as depicted in blue colour in the site plan; they are also in occupation of one room,WC and kitchen with a kolki as shown in green colour; portion marked X in the site plan consisting of one room WC and bath is being used as a factory portion since the last 8-10 years by the petitioner. Present accommodation available with the petitioner is insufficient.

(2.) The site plan has depicted these portions correctly; there is one room, kolki and WC are on the ground floor and there is one room on the first floor.

(3.) Application for leave to defend and the corresponding reply have been perused. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the eviction petition has not disclosed the complete accommodation; attention has been drawn to the averments made in the eviction petition; contention being that only three rooms have been disclosed in the present eviction petition wherein in the application for leave to defend it has been vehemently averred that there are six rooms in the occupation of the landlord to which there has been a mere bald denial; second submission being that another alternate accommodation is also available with the landlord at 1234, Mahal Sari, Kashmere Gate, Delhi which has not been disclosed by the landlord to which again there has been a bald denial. These are the only two submissions which have been urged.