KANWAL NARAIN Vs. L F TELLIS
LAWS(DLH)-1983-9-1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on September 29,1983

KANWAL NARAIN Appellant
VERSUS
L.F.TELLIS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KOCHUKESAVAN V. GAURI AMMA [CITED]
SMT. KAMLA SONI V. RUP LAL [CITED]
SAIN DASS BERRY V. SHRI MADANLAL PURI [CITED]
HARI SHANKAR V. DHAN RAJ [CITED]
MRS. OM PRABHA JAM V. ABNASH CHAND [CITED]
RAMESHWAR DASS V. JAGAN NATH [CITED]
SHEODHARI RAI VS. SURAJ PRASAD SINGH [CITED]
FIRM SRINIWAS RAM KUMAR VS. MAHABIR PRASAD [CITED]
J K IRON AND STEEL CO LIMITED KANPUR J K IRON AND STEEL CO LIMITED KANPUR VS. IRON AND STEEL MAZOOR UNION KANPUR:LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUN AF OT INDIA CALCUTTA [CITED]
HARISH CHMDRA BAJPAI VS. TRILOKI SINGH [CITED]
BHAGWATI PRASAD VS. CHANDRAMAUL [CITED]
GOPPULAL VS. THAKURJI SHRIJI SHRIJI DWARAKADHEESHJI [CITED]
UDHAV SINGH VS. MADHAV RAO SCINDIA [CITED]
FREDDY FERNANDES VS. P L MEHRA [CITED]
KRISHAN KUMAR AND RADHA RANI VS. VIMLA SAIGAL [CITED]
ABDUL HAMID VS. NUR MOHD [CITED]
MOTI RAM VS. BALDEV KRISHAN [CITED]
R BUDHAWAR VS. MAHARAJ KUMAR M SINGH [CITED]
ISHAR DAS SAWHNEY VS. S C MAHINDRU [CITED]
NARAIN DAS VS. KRISHAN LAL LONGANI [CITED]
HARBHAJAN DAS VS. TILAK RAJ MEHTA [CITED]
S R DUTTA VS. CHUNNI LAL BHATIA [CITED]
S K SEN VS. KUNWARANI CHANDRA KUNWAR [CITED]
BULAKI DASS VS. SURAJ BHAN [CITED]
SHYAM BUHARI SINGH VS. SUSHILA DEVI MITTAL [CITED]
SARIA MITTAL VS. K C JAM [CITED]
GURCHARAN SINGH VS. R N CHOUDHARY [CITED]
MAN MOHAN MEHRA VS. J S BUTALIA [CITED]
SARASWATI DEBI VS. SATYA NARAYAN GUPTA [CITED]
GANDA SINGH VS. RAM NARAIN SINGH [CITED]
SIDDIK MAHOMED SHAH VS. MT SARAN [CITED]
SAGARMULL NATHANY VS. JOHN CARAPIET GALSTAUN [CITED]



Cited Judgements :-

SMT. POONAM VS. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER [LAWS(P&H)-2010-12-153] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.L.Jain, J. - (1.)Respondent was inducted as a tenant in the premises comprising 4 rooms, 2 verandah in the 1st floor and open space on the top floor, in a three storeyed house No. 44 Lekh Ram Road, in Darya Ganj, Delhi, some time in 1953. Late Lala Ram Narain terminated the tenancy by a notice of 8.9.1975 served on the respondent in Bombay. He filed an eviction application against the respondent on the ground of bona-fide requirement on 1.10.1975. That application has now been placed on record. He stated in his application that the premises are owned by HUF of which he was the karta. The HUF consisted of his son Kanwal Narain and his grandsons. In 1972, the respondent shifted to Bombay and promised to vacate the premises but failed to do so. The accommodation available with the applicant was insufficient for the family. He died on 19.10.1975. That application was dismissed on 23.2.1976.
(2.)Shri Kanwal Narain an Advocate claiming as the Karta of the HUF again sent a notice to the respondent on 5.3.1976 and filed the present application on 30 4.1976. He alleged that he is in occupation of 2 rooms, one sitting room and a dining room on the ground floor which is not sufficient for his requirement be fitting his status. The pre- mises are required by him for himself and for the members of his HUF for the purpose of their residence. Each one of his 3 sons requires a separate study-cum-bed room. At present, they were huddled into the living room and used to quarrel. The sons have since then also grown up into the ages of 24, 22 and 20 years. He has no accommodation for his guests, who frequently visits his house and stays with him. A separate bed room for one Naurati Devi who was not a member of the family but has been living with them as one, was also required. He also needs room for his servants and the driver. His driver was living in a garage. The D.D.A. is objecting to this user while the driver is threatening to leave service for want of accomodation.
(3.)The respondent alleged that the ground floor has 4 living rooms in which the applicant and his family have been residing for long and can do so even now. Besides there are four garages, one of which is being used by the neighbour, the other is used by the driver of the applicant and the other two have been let out. The entire second floor which previously used to be occupied by several tenants is now occupied by the applicant ; out of which one room is being used as office, one room is being used as study-cum-conference room and one room is being used for his guests. The servants including the driver have also been given separate accommodation on the second floor. There is a mezzanine floor over the garages which has been used as a store and for residence of his servants. A part of the first floor had recently fallen vacant, but instead of occupying it for himself, the applicant has let it on increased rent. Since Lala Ram Narain and Naurati Devi have expired the accommodation occupied by them became available to the applicant. He had one more house, 4 Daryaganj. He had thus accommodation more than his requirements, and his alleged need is not bona fide. The house belonged to Lala Ram Narain. The applicant is not his son. The applicant is neither the owner nor the landlord. There was nothing to show that there was any H.U.F. and that he was the karta of some HUF. He is, therefore, not entitled to main- tain the application.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.