AMARJIT SINGH Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR KANDH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CAVEAT 43/2015

(2.) IN the eviction petition, the respondent pleaded that the respondent was the owner of the properties bearing No. 8697, 8698, 8699, 8700 and 8702 at Mohalla Bhar Garh, Near Palace Cinema, Gali SBI, Roshanara Road, Delhi which were merged together as one property and the total area of the five properties was approximately 90 sq.yds. In the said suit property one room on the ground floor of property No.8700 was given on tenancy to the mother of petitioner Smt. Davinder Kaur. On her death the tenanted premises devolved on her husband and thereafter on her husband's death on the petitioner herein. The brothers of the petitioner shifted from the tenanted premises during life time of their mother who were also impleaded as respondents No.2 to 4 in the eviction petition. The respondent/eviction petitioner stated that his family consisted of his wife, two sons of marriageable age and two married daughters. The younger son was doing engineering whereas the elder has completed the same. The respondent is in possession of first floor and second floor of the suit property comprising of one bed room, one kitchen, one drawing room and one dining room on the first floor and one room, bathroom, open terrace and one dilapidated room on the second floor which is used for store and washing of the clothes. The wife of the respondent is suffering from spinal problem and the Doctors have advised her not to climb stairs. Therefore one room is required on the ground floor for the wife and the other room for converting the same into kitchen. Further the respondent was also suffering from arthritis and thus it was difficult for him to climb the stairs. Thus since both the respondent and his wife would be living on the ground floor they would also need space for bathroom for themselves. It is stated that the respondent also requires a guest room for the married daughters when they come and one room for pooja. Further one room was being used as garage, the other for store to keep household articles. Since sons of the respondent are of marriageable age they would also need independent rooms for their personal needs.

(3.) THE petitioner filed leave to defend application wherein he pleaded that the respondent had not disclosed the existence of Will in his favour, that additional accommodation was available at Shastri Nagar and a DDA Flat at Rohini and that the respondent and his dependents were in occupation of three rooms, kitchen with WC on the first floor, three rooms and WC on the second floor and an open terrace which was sufficient accommodation for the respondent and his family members to live comfortably and that one room of premises 8698 was lying vacant on the ground floor. Thus the entire thrust in the leave to defend application was on sufficient accommodation available with the respondent and thus there was no bonafide requirement.