Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The petitioner filed leave to defend application on various grounds. It was averred by the petitioner that the respondent is not the owner of the suit premises since as per municipal record, the owner of the suit premises was Mandir Digamber Jain Chetalya. The next plea was that the eviction petition against the petitioner's firm was not maintainable, inasmuch as Late Rattan Chand being one of the partners of the firm, the tenancy devolved upon his legal heirs and therefore, the petition was bad for non-joinder of all the legal heirs of partner Late Rattan Chand. The eviction petition was also alleged to be not properly verified and signed as per law. On merits, the petitioner's case was that the respondent was in possession of sufficient accommodation, and this being a case of 'additional accommodation', leave to defend ought to have been granted to him. In this regard, it was also averred that the respondent got possession of one shop in May, 2011 from where garments' business was being carried. It was alleged that the hall on the ground floor was falsely stated as being used for studies, whereas the same was being used for business of assembling and sale of cycles. It was also alleged that the respondent was in possession of House No. 75 in the same locality which was not disclosed by her. It was also alleged that the respondent was having handsome income as one of her sons was running a cycle factory and another was gainfully employed at the salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month and two sons were working as commission agents. Lastly, the site plan filed by the respondent was also alleged to be incorrect, not showing the entire tenanted premises.