New Delhi: He returned from Pakistan after two decades and forcibly took over his father`s apartment. A Delhi court has now ordered him to vacate.
Additional District Judge Inderjeet Singh on May 24 said Raju had failed to establish his right on the property and was "duty bound to vacate and hand over the possession of the property to his father".
In his petition, 85-year-old Babu Ram had said that his son, Raju, who was a Pakistani national, came to India in 2009 and forcibly occupied his flat in South Delhi`s Dakshin Puri.
The petition said Raju (who uses only his first name) moved to Pakistan in 1989 after marrying Rehana Bibi, a Pakistani Christian he had met during her trip to India. After 20 years, Raju returned to Delhi with his wife and three children.
"In January 2009, they all came to India on a visa issued by the Indian High Commission in Islamabad and have been forcibly staying in the flat since," the petition said.
Babu Ram argued that he had disowned his son, who was a drunkard, days after his arrival. His son and his family were harassing and abusing him, the father said.
"I filed a police complaint against them and informed the home ministry about the overstay of Raju and his family in India," Babu Ram said.
But Raju, while admitting that he was a Pakistani national, denied in writing the allegations levelled by his father. Instead, he accused Babu Ram of acting at the behest of his other son.
Observing that the flat was allotted to Babu Ram by the Delhi Development Authority on Feb 17, 1979, the court directed Raju to peacefully vacate the flat and hand it over to his father.
The judge noted that Raju had neither presented any evidence to support his case nor cross-examined his father.
"The plaintiff stepped into the witness box, the defendant was given an opportunity by awaiting and repeated calls to come and cross-examine witness. However, the defendant failed to come and cross-examine the witness," the court said.
It added that even Raju`s counsel failed to counter Babu Ram`s arguments.
"Therefore, it is held that the defendant cannot establish issue in his favour that he has valuable right in the property," the judge said.