Kawaljit Kaur Gandhi & Anr vs Satbir Singh Bindra
2015 Latest Caselaw 9503 Del

*               HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              RC. REV. 683/2015 & CM APPL.31732/2015

                                        Decided on : 21st December, 2015

       KAWALJIT KAUR GANDHI & ANR            ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate

                          versus

       SATBIR SINGH BINDRA                                 ..... Respondent
                     Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)

1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also gone

through the impugned order. I do not find that there is any illegality,

impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated

07.11.2015, by virtue of which the leave to defend has been granted

to the respondent-tenant to contest the Eviction Petition, which has

been filed by the petitioner on the ground of bonafide requirement.

2. The main reason which this court also feels is a very valid ground

for grant of leave to defend is that both the petitioners (petitioner

No.1 and petitioner No.2) are the citizens of Canada and USA

respectively and are aged above 70 years. Both of them expressed

their desire to live in India. Hence they have filed the Eviction

Petition in respect of the property bearing No. 3388-3391, 3392-1/2

and 3416 consisting of ground, first, second and third floor at Gali

No.1 D.B. Gupta Road, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi, where the

tenanted portion, which is stated to be with the respondent is

situated. The desire of the petitioner to live in India is to be tested

through cross-examination when they adduce their evidence. Once

the desire is tested by cross-examination, then only it can be known,

whether the requirement of the petitioner is bonafide or not. Both

the petitioners are consistently living outside India and are not used

to live under the conditions and circumstances prevalent in India,

where people have to face various problems. Life in Western

countries is more smooth and trouble free. Therefore, the tenant,

who is respondent herein has rightly raised the question of bonafides

of the petitioner in retrieving the properties, apart from raising the

plea that they have first and second floor of the suit property

available to him.

3. All these facts have been dealt by the learned Additional Rent

Controller in its short and crisp order and has held that this is a fit

case, where leave to defend deserves to be granted to the respondent.

4. I do not feel that there was anythsing illegal or improper on the part

of the learned Additional Rent Controller in granting the leave to

defend. Accordingly the present revision petition is misconceived

and is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

st DECEMBER 21 , 2015 n