Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Petitioner filed his reply to the leave to defend application with counter affidavit, which is essentially a reiteration of the contents of the petition. In addition thereto, it is stated that the respondent's application seeking leave to contest (filed on 07.06.2013) is time barred as he was served on 07.05.2013 by way of refusal through registered post. It is stated that the tenant cannot, under the law, deny ownership of the landlord. He has vehemently refuted respondent's averments to the effect that his requirement is not bonafide. Petitioner states that the document whereby his will was cancelled is fabricated and a procured document. It is denied that his grandfather ever cancelled the will in question. It is stated that the property already stands mutated on the basis of the will. He submits that other legal heirs of his late grandfather have not raised any question on this issue in any forum. It is pointed out that respondent himself avers that he was paying the rent to his father and his father having passed away, landlordship would devolve upon him. It is stated that the tenant cannot direct him to run his business from a particular shop. Petitioner states that since the respondent himself states that in such a small shop, his requirement cannot be met, he was therefore justified in suing for eviction of all shops.