RAM NARAIN ARORA Vs. ASHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's appeal arising out of certain proceedings initiated under the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The respondent-landlord filed a petition under S. 14(1)(e) read with S. 25B of the Act seeking for the possession of the house by evicting the appellant as he required the same for his bona fide need and occupation. The appellant before us filed his written statement contending that the landlord has alternate accommodation at Subzi Mandi and he has deliberately shifted to the disputed premises with an ulterior motive to make out a case for the eviction of the respondent and this fact of availability of the said premises in Subzi Mandi had not been disclosed in the petition.

(2.) In the course of the proceedings before the Rent Controller a finding was recorded by him as to the bona fide requirement of the respondent in the following terms:-

(3.) On the question whether the respondent had disclosed the full facts necessary for the disposal of the petition filed by him, the Rent Controller noticed that from the evidence recorded, the allegation of respondent No. 1 in the written statement in respect of the accommodation in possession and available to respondent in No. 2772, Subzi Mandi, Delhi stands proved. And, therefore, he has not come to the Court with clean hands. He had suppressed the information which was in his possession as to the availability of the house at Subzi Mandi at the time of filing of the petition and as well as filing of their replication. He surrendered this acco-mmodation only on 21-8-1984, that is, during the pendency of the petition. The respondent No. 1 has alleged that the appellant shifted to the ground floor of the house in dispute about a year prior to 1-1-1983 and the petition was filed on 24-7-1983. He accepted the stand of the appellant that the respondent had done so with the mala fide intention to evict him.