Tabassum vs Shariff Khan

Mukta Gupta, J.—The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11th April, 2012 whereby the leave to defend application of the petitioner was declined. Notice was issued to the respondent in the present petition, however he refused to accept service and hence the respondent is demand to be served. In the eviction petition itself the respondent/eviction petitioner stated that he was residing with his three sons at Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk in a room measuring 40 ft. X ft. and thus required the tenanted premises for bona-fide purpose. The respondent further stated that the respondent was the owner of the property No. G-89, New Seelampur Market, admeasuring 80 sq. yds. (in short the suit property) wherein the tenanted premises had been let out. The tenanted premises comprised of one room, one store, open space, common latrine and bathroom on the first floor of the premises. Accordingly, according to the respondent himself the suit property at New Seelampur Market wherein the tenanted premises is situated is built up to third floor. The ground floor of the premises comprises of two halls out of which the front hall admeasuring 40 sq. yds. Has been let out, however the hall at the rear side is lying vacant and is in possession of the respondent. Further on the first floor there are six rooms out of which one room has been let out to the petitioner as tenant and five rooms are lying vacant and are in possession of the respondent. Similarly, the second floor consists of six rooms of which two rooms have been let out to two tenants and the remaining 4 rooms are lying vacant and the third floor consists of two rooms of which one room has been let out and one room is lying vacant. Thus, as per the admission of the respondent itself one hall on the ground floor, and 10 room on the three floors are vacant and in his possession in the suit premises for 7 family members which comprise of the respondent, his two sons who are of marriageable age and one son who is married having two school going children. The petitioner tool the plea of availability of 11 rooms in vacant possession of the respondent in suit premises in his leave to defend application. Considering this admission of the respondent in my considered opinion the learned ARC erred in not granting the leave to defend as to whether the recruitment of one more room i.e. the tenanted premises was a bona-fide requirement or not.

Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. Leave to defend is granted to the petitioner. Wherein statement be filed within four weeks. Replication within four weeks thereafter. List the matter before the learned ARC on 25th March, 2015. Petition and application are disposed of.