Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: knee replacement in Smt. Vimla Rani vs Sh. Sanat Kumar on 29 June, 2015Matching Fragments
15. The motherinlaw of the petitioner is not suffering from any disease as alleged to be suffering from osteoporoses as well as knee pains. The petitioner has not filed any authentic previous medical documents of the treatment. The petitioner filed recent medical documents showing the date of treatment as February and March, 2013 and the same are false and fabricated. The petitioner and her motherinlaw are rich persons and have handsome resources for the treatment of alleged knee pain as knee replacement surgery is available and after getting knee replacement, any person can walk smoothly. The cost of knee replacement surgery is Rs. 1,50,000/ only which the petitioner can easily bear.
17. It is denied that the petitioner is owner of property bearing no. E63, Ganesh Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, consisting of ground floor, first floor, second floor, third floor and fourth floor. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is owner of only ground and fourth floors of the said property which is in possession of tenants and not suitable for motherinlaw of the petitioner as she cannot be allowed to live separately in isolation due to her old age and ailments. The motherinlaw of the petitioner requires the assistance of the petitioner and her grandchildren at all times and for all purposes. It is denied that the petitioner harassed the respondent for increasing the rent and threatened to dispossess him from the tenanted room. The property in question was purchased by the petitioner from her mother inlaw for a sum of Rs. 1 lac only and not Rs. 6 lacs, as alleged by the respondent. This fact is also evident from the copy of sale deed filed alongwith the petition. The doctor has not yet advised knee replacement surgery to motherinlaw of the petitioner.
Bonafide requirement
28. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that as per the site plan filed by the petitioner, there is no toilet on the ground floor and therefore, the tenanted shop is not suitable for motherinlaw of the petitioner. The petitioner harassed the respondent for increasing the rent and threatened to dispossess him from the tenanted shop. The respondent had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner. The present petition has been filed as a counter blast to petition U/s 27 of the DRC Act filed by the respondent. The motherinlaw of the petitioner had got Rs. 6 lacs as sale consideration amount for sale of the suit property in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, she is having adequate means to reside as per her status. The petitioner wants to relet the tenanted shop at higher rent. The copies of medical record filed by the petitioner are forged and fabricated. No authentic previous medical record of the treatment of motherinlaw of petitioner has been filed. The motherinlaw of the petitioner can undergo knee replacement surgery which costs only Rs. 1.5 lacs after which a person can walk smoothly. Therefore, the alleged requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide.
29. Per contra, it is averred on behalf of the petitioner that as per the site plan filed by the petitioner, there is a toilet on the ground floor, situated near the tenanted room and no difficulty will be faced by motherinlaw of the petitioner. It is denied that the petitioner harassed the respondent for increasing the rent and threatened to dispossess him from the tenanted shop. It is also denied that the present petition has been filed as a counter blast to petition U/s 27 of the DRC Act filed by the respondent. It is denied that the motherinlaw of the petitioner had got Rs. 6 lacs as sale consideration amount for sale of the suit property in favour of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the sale consideration amount in respect of suit property was Rs. 1 lac only which is also evident from copy of the sale deed filed alongwith the petition. It is denied that the motherinlaw of petitioner is having adequate means to reside as per her status. It is denied that the petitioner wants to re let the tenanted shop at higher rent or that the copies of medical record filed by the petitioner are forged and fabricated. It is well settled law that a tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord. Moreover, the doctors have not advised knee replacement surgery to motherinlaw of the petitioner.