POKHAR MAL Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED judgment dated 27.07.2011 had decreed the eviction petition filed by the landlord Om Prakash seeking the tenanted premises i.e. a shop bearing No. A-400, ground floor, Amar Puri, Nabi Kari, Paharganj, New Delhi in his favour. The application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant Pokhar Mal had been declined.

(2.) IN the eviction petition, it has been contended that the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises; contention in para 19 is that in 1970, the whole of the disputed property had been purchased by the petitioner and Ram Avtar in equal shares; thereafter Ram Avtar had transferred his share in favour of the wife of the present petitioner namely INdermani; on 31.08.2005, the property had been sold vide a registered sale deed in favour of Chand Azad; inadvertently the sale deed mentioned this shop as well which was otherwise excluded from the aforenoted sale; shop was thereafter retransferred in the name of the present petitioner on the same date; the present petitioner is the exclusive owner of the suit premises. The documents filed by the petitioner in support of his claim qua his status as owners/landlord of the suit property includes the sale deed dated 31.08.2005 as also a general power of attorney of the same day executed by Chand Azad in favour of the present petitioner. This power of attorney makes a reference to the present property wherein the executent Chand Azad had appointed Om Prakash as his attorney to deal with the property in any manner including the filing of a suit for ejectment and to sale/transfer the property. This is a registered document. Admittedly before the date of filing of the petition which had disclosed these facts, the tenant/petitioner was unaware of the sale of the aforenoted property in favour of Chand Azad or the subsequent retransfer of the same in favour of the present petitioner. The bonafide need of the landlord has also been explained in the eviction petition; the bonafide need being to the effect that the family of the petitioner comprises of himself, his wife and three sons; his third son Sandeep is not doing any business and the suit property is required by him for running the business of his son Sandeep who is dependent upon him for his accommodation; he has no other business premises from where he can carry out his business activity; further contention being that the petitioner along with his family is living at 2B, Pocket M, Janta Flats, Sarita Vihar, Delhi which is a first floor accommodation and which cannot be used for any business activity; the shop in question is situated in commercially viable area which would enable his son to carry out his business.

(3.) IN 1995 RLR 162 Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. a Bench of this Court while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA had noted as follows: