Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. In the reply to the aforesaid application, in respect of the first ground taken by the respondent, while denying the assertions made by the respondent, the petitioner has pleaded that he is the owner of the tenanted premises and filed the copy of registered sale deed in his favour in the present petition and further stated that even landlord, seeking eviction for bonafide requirement, is not required to show his absolute ownership of ARC 1163/16, Sh. Girwar Singh Through LRs Vs. Sh. Amit Kumar Kumra, Page no. 3 of 12 property, when tenancy is admitted and even the possessory rights over the property of a person has been given recognition as ownership vis-a-vis tenant under the DRC Act. In respect of the second ground taken by the respondent, the petitioner has pleaded that after the death of his father, tenancy devolved upon the respondent; that rent receipts issued by the respondent and also by his father Sh. Darshan Lal Kumra had also been filed and other family members namely Ms. Aruna, Madhu, Vineeta and Shweta of late Sh. Darshan Lal Kumra were married before the death of their father and thereafter never resided in the tenanted premises as family members of deceased and since then living separately. In respect of the third ground taken by the respondent, while denying the assertions made by the respondent, the petitioner has pleaded that petitioner has no shop bearing no. 441/15. He categorically denied that Sh. Suraj Singh was carrying on his business from the shop no. 441/15, Jheel Khureja, Delhi or that after the demise of Sh. Suraj Singh, his younger son Sh. Yogesh has taken over the business of sale (wholesale) of vegetables from the said shop with the help of his mother or that there exists a complete vacant floor exactly above the shop no 441/15, which is lying unused or that family of Sh. Suraj Singh is looking for a tenant in respect of said first floor. It is pleaded that petitioner has no such shop bearing no. 441/15. In respect of the fourth ground taken by the respondent, the petitioner, while denying the assertions made by the respondent, has pleaded that the said shop is on rent under DDA.