Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

to as 'Act'), in respect of premises i.e. part of property no.1, Arjun Nagar, Kamal Cinema Road, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition (hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises).

2. The averments as mentioned in the petition are that originally tenancy was created by erstwhile owners Onkar Singh and Balbir Kaur and after their demise both petitioners being children/ class I heir obtained letter of administration qua the properties and hence the petitioners became owners and landlords of tenancy premises. The petitioners also alleged that the tenancy was attorned in favour of the petitioners, as petitioner no.2 used to collect rent from the respondents. Petitioner alleged that original tenant was Sh. Daljit Singh Bedi and after his demise his two sons/ respondents inherited the tenancy. The petitioner however alleged that on their visit, the tenancy was occupied by one Smt. Ramvati.

5. The summons of the petition were served upon the respondents and respondents has filed application for leave to defend on 23.10.2020 however, the affidavit of only respondent no.2 was filed. The leave to defend application although mentions for respondents, however no affidavit of respondent no.1 is on record, nor any Vakalatnama is on record. The respondent no.2 has also not filed any authorisation or attorney on behalf of respondent no.1.

6. Respondent no.2 in his application for leave to defend has stated that the eviction petition is filed by the petitioner with the malafide intention and the requirement vis-a-vis the tenanted premises sought for in the petition is neither genuine nor proper and the circumstances is not bonafide and the petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is further stated that the eviction petition is without any cause of action and not maintainable. It is alleged that after demise of Sh. Onkar Singh, the petitioner no.2 apprised respondent that he was sole owner and he would receive the rent qua the tenanted premises and as such petitioner no.1 neither appeared nor sought any rent and thus petitioner no.1 is complete stranger to the respondents and there existed no landlord-tenant relationship with petitioner no.1. The respondents further averred that the petitioners concealed the fact that they are owners of entire property bearing no.1, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi and they have already constructed other portions and after seeking eviction they want to re-construct the property, otherwise RC ARC 03 of 2020 Pages 3 of 18 Manmeet Kaur & Anr. v. Honey Daljit Bedi & Anr.

17. Section 2(e) of the Act clearly states that it is immaterial if the landlord is actually receiving the rent, if the landlord was entitled to receive the same, he is landlord for the purposes of the Act. Thus it is immaterial if petitioner no.2 received entire rent or shared the rent in half with the petitioner no.1. As long as both petitioners prove to be the legal heirs of original landlord Onkar Singh, both petitioners have inherited equal shares in the property and are co-owners as well as co-landlord. The tenancy was created by parents of petitioners in favour of father of tenant and tenant does not dispute that his father was tenant of petitioner no.2's father. No where in the application the respondent no.2 deny that petitioner no.1 is not legal heir of erstwhile owner, infact in the affidavit, the respondent no.2 states that both petitioners have other portions of the property i.e. 1, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi. So, in his affidavit itself the respondent admits that both petitioners were owners of the property no. 1, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi and at the other averment, the respondent wants to deny the landlord-tenant relationship with petitioner no.1.

side also contends that they require the entire portion of the demised property alongwith other areas to start the catering business.

31. The respondent merely stated that petitioners can use the other shop, portion to start the business, he however neither disputes the site plan, nor he gives what alternate shop and area is sufficient for the petitioner to run his business. The respondent has already contended that there is no bathroom, water amenities, etc. The property is even admitted to be old and same would require considerable overhaul. Since catering business is of sophisticated and delicate nature, the old construction cannot be safe or may pose hygiene issues. The petitioner thus would require considerable planning, renovation and meticulous execution to engage in catering business. It is common knowledge that catering business would require highest hygiene standards and based on the business already run by Amarjeet Singh (husband of petitioner no.1 and father of Japmeet Singh), it would be safe to say that petitioner would require entire portion of property no.1, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi. The respondent cannot merely deny that the demised property is not appropriate for the bonafide requirement of the landlord and there are alternate accommodation available. The petitioner is categorical that whole of the portion of property no.1, Arjun Nagar, New Delhi is required for catering business. Thus by mere denial the respondents cannot be considered to have raised triable issued. The respondents are duty bound to dispute the site plan, or atleast show that the portion available in the alternative is sufficient for the landlord.