MEENA DEVI Vs. SHIV PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.818/2015 (Exemption)

(2.) The only issue raised before this Court by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that there was no landlord-tenant relationship and the same having not been established no eviction order could have been passed.

(3.) A brief exposition of the facts is that the father of the Respondent late Munna Lal let out the premises to Shri Bal Raj Kumar husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 6 on 12th December, 1989 for residential use at the monthly rent of Rs.300/-. Since there were disputes between the parties late Bal Raj Kumar filed a suit for permanent injunction against late Munna Lal which was decreed in favour of LRs of Bal Raj Kumar vide judgment dated 15th November, 1997 as Bal Raj expired on 17th January, 1996. Thereafter Munna Lal filed a suit for recovery of possession against the LRs of late Bal Raj Kumar which was dismissed on 9th April, 2001. On 1st February, 2007 Munna Lal expired leaving behind his daughter Basanti, who is married and living in the matrimonial home. The respondent son of Munna Lal is aged 30 years old and his family consists of his wife, two daughters and they have only one room and a shared kitchen, bathroom cum toilet and balcony for them. His both daughters are minor and studying and thus require a separate room for studies. Even the Respondent and his wife need privacy and separate room, as their daughters are growing. Since no suitable sufficient accommodation was available they filed the eviction petition of the tenanted premises for the bona fide requirement of the Respondent.