18. It has been next argued that the petitioner is having various other properties in his name and that of his wife but there is nothing on record to prove the same. No counter site plan has been brought on record by the respondents to show any vacant portions, if any in the said alleged properties. Mere vague pleas has been raised by the respondents in this regard. Merely mentioning the details of the properties is not sufficient. It was required to be stated by the respondent that said properties despite availability is not occupied by the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner has given detail of three properties in his ownership other than the subject property. One property is under the tenancy of tenant namely Shyam Lal and the case is pending against the said property and the said facts are not disputed. Another property is in the occupation of another tenant namely Mohit. Hence, the said properties are not available being tenanted. Then there is another property which has been detailed by the petitioner as Mustail no. Tin Shade No. 2/3 and 2A/3, property no. 11/165 to 156 and 203/232, Coronation Hotel Building, third floor, Chandni Chowk. It has been stated that it is in inhabitable condition on third floor. Even if for the sake of argument it is assumed that the said third floor is available, the petitioner requires the tenanted premises for storing his articles and the same being on third floor is not only inconvenient but unsuitable from every comer
