KISHAN CHAND Vs. CHIMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant sought eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground that he required the tenanted premises bona fide for his residence as also for the residence of his son. After leave was granted to the respondent-tenant to contest the eviction petition, evidence was led by the parties. Learned additional rent controller on 20th nov. 1998 dismissed the eviction petition. The revision filed against the order of the additional rent controller came to be rejected by the impugned order. The learned single of the High Court non-suited the appellant only on the ground that the appellant had "concealed material facts" with regard to allotment of a flat in a co-operative society in favour of his son.

(3.) From the pleadings filed in this Court, we find that the son of the appellant, namely, Shri Atul Kumar was allotted a flat in Pooja Apartments, Patparganj, Delhi but according to the assertion of the appellant that allotment had been made to his son after statement of the appellant had been recorded in the eviction proceedings and the possession was also delivered to his son later on. This assertion has not been denied by the respondents. In this fact situation, the appellant could not be accused of concealing any material facts either in the eviction petition or at the time of making a statement because these were subsequent events. In this view of the matter, the High Court clearly fell in error in dismissing the revision petition on the solitary ground of concealing "material facts".