O K BHALLA Vs. KAMLA CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT

(2.) THE Counsel for the petitioner has challenged theimpugned order dated 2.4.1993 whereby the Additional Rent Controller refusedleave to contest the eviction petition and passed an eviction order against thepetitioner. THE first point of attack was regarding the finding of the AdditionalRent Controller on the question of ownership of the respondent landlady. Onthis aspect, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Additional RentController. However, the second question regarding personal bona fide need of thepetitioner raises a triable issue particularly in view of the fact that the respondentlandlady is admittedly residing in the Kucha Natwan property which was ownedby her father. In the eviction petition, it is not disputed that she is an heir to herfather. However, the case set up is that it was the wish of her father that theproperty should go to his two sons alone. On this aspect of the case, the learnedAdditional Rent Controller has observed that 'THE petitioner being the daughterof the deceased, Amolak Ram Kohli, legally has no right to live in the propertyat Kutcha Natwan alongwith her husband and daughter". This observation iscontrary to law specially when no 'Will' or any other document executed by thedeceased father is pleaded. THE impugned order dated 2.4.1995 is, therefore, setaside. Leave to contest the eviction petition is granted to the petitioner tenant.Parties to appear before the Additional Rent Controller on 30.3.1995 for furtherproceedings in accordance with law.