Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7.2 On the basis of above, it is submitted that the petitioner is unsure about his tenants; about the agreement dated 18.03.1971 and its validity; that he cannot proceed without impleading his sister as a necessary party; that he should file his father's Will and that he cannot claim to be sole owner/sole landlord.

7.3 It is further pointed out that in his cross­examination in civil suit, the petitioner admitted of having other properties in Delhi as against claim made in this petition. It is alleged that the details of the said properties is deliberately not mentioned in the present petition. It Harminder Singh Koghar v. Bimla Devi & Ors. E-10/09 is further in WS that after death of Sh. Radhey Lall, the Karta of R.D. Ram Nath Company is Sh. Vivek Lall, second respondent herein. The present petition is stated to be bad for non­joining of 'R.D. Ram Nath Company, HUF'. It is further in the WS that the premises demised cannot be used for residential purposes being commercial in nature and so declared under MPD­2021. It is further in WS that for 40 years there was not even a hint of petitioner's requirement. The property was purchased by his father for rental income. His family is well established abroad and thus there is no chance of petitioner and his family coming back and living in Delhi. It is also in the WS that petitioner has not given details of his family members dependent upon him for accommodation and also as to how much area, space or rooms will be required by him for his bona fide need. It is also in the WS that the petitioner does not state that he wants to shift permanently in the demised premises or wants to use it as residence in his future. It is further in WS that no details of Noida plot have been provided, the purpose for which it is required and what has been constructed on it is not disclosed. No details of specialized knowledge or the company/undertakings with which petitioner is in contact are Harminder Singh Koghar v. Bimla Devi & Ors. E-10/09 provided. It is also in the WS that petitioner comes to India and stays in hotels only to pursue his civil suit. It is also in the WS that the petitioner has offered to sell demised premises to respondents but talks cannot be materialized as price could not be negotiated. It is alleged that he has intention to sell the property. It is also in the WS that petitioner has reasonably suitable alternative accommodation and that the petitioner owns a property at Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. It is further in the WS that when the petitioner was negotiating for sale of demised premises with second respondent, he had revealed that he was constructing one 'thousand room hotel' in Thailand in collaboration with Ramada Inn. He also revealed that he and his sons have well established and lucrative business of embroidery. It is thus submitted that with this background the petitioner's only intention is to grab the property in garb of setting up small business in Noida. His bona fide intention are said to be sham.