AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vijender Jain, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the power of attorney subsequently filed by the father of the owner/landlord did not incorporate that the original petition which was filed had the authority by the son to institute the eviction petition.
Learned Addl. Rent Controller has clearly mentioned in the order that the subsequent power of attorney which was filed and duly registered has ratified the institution of the previous eviction petition.
I do not find any infirmity with the order of the Addl. Rent Controller as the relationship of owner or the purpose of letting has not been denied by the petitioner.
The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the son who is the landlord of the property in question does not require the property as he was residing in the Bombay with his family for the last 18 years and the requirement of the father cannot be considered as a requirement of a family member.
I do not find any force in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly the father is residing in a tenanted accommodation and he has given the undertaking before the concerned Court to Vacate that tenanted premises on or before 30th September, 1999. A father can legitimately expect his son to provide residence to him. Therefore, I hold that a father who is dependent for residence on his son, he is a member of the family and for his requirement, a son can maintain a petition for eviction. No ground to interfere.
Dismissed.