AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Indermeet Kaur, J.—Order impugned before this Court is the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2003 vide which the eviction petition filed by the landlord Lt. Col. A.N. Anand seeking eviction of his tenant Vipin Oberoi from the barsati floor of property bearing No. F-145, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi had been dismissed.
The premises have been described in the eviction petition as two rooms, one store-cum-kitchen, one store and one toilet on the open terrace as depicted in red colour in the site plan. Contention of the landlord is that that he is the owner of the premises and the said premises had been let out to the tenant for residential purpose. There was no dispute to the ownership or landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The impugned judgment has held that the premises had been let out for residential purpose. There is also no quarrel on this aspect either. Eviction petition had been dismissed primarily for the reason that the landlord was seeking partial eviction of the suit premises which is not permissible in law; it was dismissed also for the reason that the landlord had failed to disclose the existing accommodation available with him as a result of which his bonafide requirement could not have been made out. In the eviction petition, it has been stated that the premises are required by the petitioner as a residence for other family members who are dependent upon him and he has no other reasonably suitably accommodation available with him; he is retired as Lt. Colonel from Indian Army and his family consist of himself, his son, daughter-in-law and two school going children; he is also visited by friends and there is no room to accommodate them even for a single night; he is presently running his business from Kirti Nagar; eviction was accordingly prayed for.
Leave to defend had been granted and the written statement had been filed by the tenant. Needless to state that these averments had been denied. Contention of the tenant was that the eviction petition and the site plan are not in conformity with one another; the site plan has not depicted the store. Further contention being that the need of the landlord is not bonafide.
Oral and documentary evidence had been led by the respective parties. Two witnesses were examined on either side. AW-1 was the petitioner himself; his son Sunil Kumar had come into the box as AW-2. On behalf of the tenant, Rajwant Singh Sandhu was examined as RW-1; the respondent himself i.e. Vipin Oberoi had entered into the witness box in his capacity as RW-2.
After some arguments, it has been agreed by learned counsel for the parties that since the landlord had not filed the site plan which was probably the grey area, as to why his eviction petition had been dismissed. Permission is accordingly granted to the landlord to file the site plan of the accommodation which was available with him. The said site plan will be taken on record with a copy of the same to be furnished to learned counsel for the respondent. Thereafter the arguments will be heard afresh on the evidence which has already been adduced by the respective parties. It is made clear that no opportunity will be granted to the parties to lead any additional evidence. The ARC will address himself on the site plan to be filed by the landlord and in the light of which the evidence both oral and documentary shall be appreciated by him.
With these directions, petition is disposed of.
The parties to appear before the ARC on 28.02.2012.