Delhi High Court
Lt.Col.(Retd) A.N.Anand vs Vipin Oberoi on 13 February, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 13.02.2012.
+ C.R.P. No. 471/2003
LT.COL.(RETD) A.N.ANAND ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Harish Malhotra, Sr.
Advocate with Mr.
versus
VIPIN OBEROI ..... Respondent
Through Mr. B.S. Mathur, Adv.
Pocket
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 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.
2 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.
3 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.
4 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.
5 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.
6 With these directions, petition is disposed of.
7 The parties to appear before the ARC on 28.02.2012.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
FEBRUARY 13, 2012
A
