AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Kumar, J.
(1) The Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 2.4.1993 whereby the Additional Rent Controller refused leave to contest the eviction petition and passed an eviction order against the petitioner. The first point of attack was regarding the finding of the Additional Rent Controller on the question of ownership of the respondent landlady. On this aspect, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Additional Rent Controller .However, the second question regarding personal bona fide need of the petitioner raises a triable issue particularly in view of the fact that the respondent landlady is admittedly residing in the Kucha Natwan property which was owned by her father. In the eviction petition, it is not disputed that she is an heir to her father .However, the case set up is that it was the wish of her father that the property should go to his two sons alone. On this aspect of the case, the learned Additional Rent Controller has observed that ''The petitioner being the daughter of the deceased, Amolak Ram Kohli, legally has no right to live in the property at Kutcha Natwan Along with her husband and daughter". This observation is contrary to law specially when no ''Will'' or any other document executed by the deceased father is pleaded. The impugned order dated 2.4.1995 is, Therefore, set-aside .Leave to contest the eviction petition is granted to the petitioner tenant. Parties to appear before the Additional Rent Controller on 30.3.1995 for further proceedings in accordance with law.
(2) In the facts and circumstances of the case,the Additional Rent Controller will expedite the disposal of the eviction petition as far as possible.