Jagan Nath or legal heirs of Shri Jagdish Prasad have been challenged or a challenge has been made to the sale deed dated 11.10.1996. Hence, the trial court concluded that the ownership of the respondents over the premises in question cannot be disputed in the present proceedings and the existence of landlord tenant relationship is indisputable. 6. On the issue of bona fide requirement, the trial court noted the submissions of the petitioner that the property in question is surrounded by a paper market and the place may not be suitable for carrying on the activities of workshop for industrial tools etc. It noted the contention of the petitioner about the claim of various properties allegedly available with the respondents. The trial court also noted the submissions of the respondent that the respondent No.1 is a member of a large family of 8 brothers. All the brothers were living in the property No.436, Chitla Gate, Delhi which is a DDA property. On account of acute paucity of accommodation, families of three brothers had shifted to property No.475-476 Chitla Gate, Delhi. Regarding ShopNo.4664, Hauz Qazi, Delhi, it was noted that this is owned by one Akhtar Sultan Begum and was in the tenancy of the father of the respondent No.1 and is now in occupation of the brother Mohd.Shamim and Gulzar Ahmed who are running their own business. It is also noted that the respondent has denied having possession of any other properties. Based on the above discussions, the trial court concluded that there is no other suitable accommodation available to the respondents. On bona fide requirements, based on the averment of the respondent, the trial court concluded in favour of the respondents and dismissed the application of the petitioner and passed the eviction order.
