Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV. 323/2011
RAMESH Petitioner Thi-ough: Mr. Sheetesh Klianna & Mr. Gautam Anand, Advocates
RC.REV. 323/2011
RAMESH Petitioner Thi-ough: Mr. Sheetesh Klianna & Mr. Gautam Anand, Advocates
VERSUS
CM PRAKASH SAINI Respondent Tln-ough: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
19.08.2011 I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. The 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 14(l)(e) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act has been rejected by the learned Additional Rent Controller.
The trial Court has observed in para no. 8 of the impugned order as under regarding the case of the respondent's bona fide requirement:-
"8. The respondent next contended that the petitioner is in possession of the entire floor of the property and is residing comfortably there. The respondent has not disputed the number of family members given in the eviction petition. The respondent has also not disputed the total accommodation presently available to the petitioner. The 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 petitioner is unjustified, malafide or illogical." The grandchildren of the petitioner are of growing age.
The grandchildren of the petitioner ai-e school going children, who need study rooms. The need of the puja room and a guest room cannot be described as unjustified."
I do not consider the above view of the trial Court to be perverse since the facts stated in the para no. 8 have not been challenged to ha"^ been incorrectly accepted. So, this petition is dismissed in limine.
P.K. BHASIN, J AUGUST 19, 20Il/pg 2011:DHC:15824
19.08.2011 I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. The 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 14(l)(e) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act has been rejected by the learned Additional Rent Controller.
The trial Court has observed in para no. 8 of the impugned order as under regarding the case of the respondent's bona fide requirement:-
"8. The respondent next contended that the petitioner is in possession of the entire floor of the property and is residing comfortably there. The respondent has not disputed the number of family members given in the eviction petition. The respondent has also not disputed the total accommodation presently available to the petitioner. The 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 petitioner is unjustified, malafide or illogical." The grandchildren of the petitioner are of growing age.
The grandchildren of the petitioner ai-e school going children, who need study rooms. The need of the puja room and a guest room cannot be described as unjustified."
I do not consider the above view of the trial Court to be perverse since the facts stated in the para no. 8 have not been challenged to ha"^ been incorrectly accepted. So, this petition is dismissed in limine.
P.K. BHASIN, J AUGUST 19, 20Il/pg 2011:DHC:15824
JUDGMENT