Full Text
Translation output
)<
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF'
. RC.REV. 324/20rr
VIJAY LAXMI
Tluough:
OM PRAKASI{ SAINI
Through: None
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF'
. RC.REV. 324/20rr
VIJAY LAXMI
Tluough:
OM PRAKASI{ SAINI
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
DELHI AT NEW DELIII..... Petitioner
Mr. Sheetesh Khanna & Mr. Gautam Anand.
Advocates
VETSUS..... Respondent t OITDER
"/o 19.08.2011
I havc heard the counsel for the petitioner. fhe petitioner - tenant's application seeking leave to defend the eviction petition filed against him by his landlord in respect of the premises in question under Section 1a(l)(e) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act has been rejected by the learned Additional Rent Controller.
Thc trial Courl has obserued in para no. 8 of thc irnpugned order as under regarding the case of the respondent's bona fide requirement:-
"8. The respondent next contended that thc petitioner is in possession of the entire floor of the property and is residing cornfortably there. The respondcnt has not disputed the number of family mernbcrs given in the cviction petition. The respondent has also not disputed the total accommodation prcsently available to the petitioner. 'Ihe accommodation of 7 rooms is highly inadequate for a family consisting of 6 adult members and children. It cannot be said that the requirement of the petitioncr is unjustified, rnalafide or illogical. The grandchildlen of thc petitioner are of growing age.
I'he grandchildren of the petitioner are school going childrcn, who need study rooms. The need of the puja room and a guest room cannot be described as unjustified."
I do not consider the abovc view of the trial Court to be perverse since the facts stated in the para no. 8 have not bcen challengcd to have been incorrectly accepted.
'So, this petition is dismissed in limine.
AUGUST 19,20tllpg x
P.K. BHASIN, J
2011:DHC:15810
DELHI AT NEW DELIII..... Petitioner
Mr. Sheetesh Khanna & Mr. Gautam Anand.
Advocates
VETSUS..... Respondent t OITDER
"/o 19.08.2011
I havc heard the counsel for the petitioner. fhe petitioner - tenant's application seeking leave to defend the eviction petition filed against him by his landlord in respect of the premises in question under Section 1a(l)(e) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act has been rejected by the learned Additional Rent Controller.
Thc trial Courl has obserued in para no. 8 of thc irnpugned order as under regarding the case of the respondent's bona fide requirement:-
"8. The respondent next contended that thc petitioner is in possession of the entire floor of the property and is residing cornfortably there. The respondcnt has not disputed the number of family mernbcrs given in the cviction petition. The respondent has also not disputed the total accommodation prcsently available to the petitioner. 'Ihe accommodation of 7 rooms is highly inadequate for a family consisting of 6 adult members and children. It cannot be said that the requirement of the petitioncr is unjustified, rnalafide or illogical. The grandchildlen of thc petitioner are of growing age.
I'he grandchildren of the petitioner are school going childrcn, who need study rooms. The need of the puja room and a guest room cannot be described as unjustified."
I do not consider the abovc view of the trial Court to be perverse since the facts stated in the para no. 8 have not bcen challengcd to have been incorrectly accepted.
'So, this petition is dismissed in limine.
AUGUST 19,20tllpg x
P.K. BHASIN, J
2011:DHC:15810
JUDGMENT