RAMESH CHAND JAIN Vs. SURESH KUMAR KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED judgment is dated 30.11.2011; vide which the eviction petition filed by the landlord Suresh Kumar Kohli seeking eviction of his tenant Ramesh Chand Jain from the disputed premises i.e. a shop bearing municipal No.2656, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi had been decreed and application seeking leave to defend had been declined.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present eviction petition had been filed by the landlord on the ground of bonafide requirement; the grounds for eviction are contained in para 18; petitioner alleged that he is the owner of the suit property; his father Bhagat Raj Kohli and his father-in-law Sardar Chand Narang were the joint owners of the property bearing No.2656; they had let out the shop to the aforenoted tenant vide a lease deed dated 15.11.1975; the original tenant was Ishwar Chand Jain and after his death the respondent namely Ramesh Chand Jain had become the tenant by survivorship. Father-in-law of the petitioner had filed a suit for partition of the aforenoted property and pursuant thereto on a joint application a consent decree of partition was passed inter se between the parties on 27.3.2001; pursuant to which the aforenoted suit shop has fallen to the share of the petitioner; since then rent was earlier being paid to Bhagat Raj Kohli, (the father of the petitioner) and after his death the petitioner has become the owner of the suit premises. Rent is also being paid by the tenant to the petitioner. This position qua the ownership of the present petitioner is not in dispute. A bald submission has been made by the learned counsel for the tenant that the compromised arrangement between the father of the petitioner namely Bhagat Raj Kohli and his father-in-law is a document which has not been proved in accordance with law and to that extent only a preliminary question had been raised about the title of the landlord; however, this contention is no longer disputed. RECORD shows that the consent decree passed on 27.3.2001 in Suit No.2969/2001 between Bhagat Raj Kohli (father of the petitioner) and his father-in-law Sardar Chand Narang had been acted upon and thereafter the suit property having fallen to the share of Bhagat Raj Kohli and the tenant started recognizing Bhagat Raj Kohli as his landlord; after Bhagat Raj Kohli the present petitioner is his landlord; there is no quarrel on this proposition of ownership.

(3.) LEAVE to defend was filed; contention is that the landlord Suresh Kumar Kolhi is himself running flourishing jewellery business and he has a huge showroom; his sons Sahil Kohli and Sidhant Kohli are in fact engaged in this business with their father; the need of the petitioner is not bonafide. This contention raised by the tenant in the leave to defend application finds mention in para 6 of the application.