SATTO DEVI Vs. OM PRAKASH SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'The respondent herein (petitioner before the Additional Rent Controller) sought eviction of the present petitioner, as he needed file tenant premises, for his bona fide requirements. It was respondent's casd that the presentpetitioner was a tenant in respect of one room on the ground floor and open 'Space infront of the room with common use of latrine and bath situated on the ground floor of premises No.2189/l68. Ganesh Pura-B.'Trinagar. Delhi. The tenanted property was owned by his faither. After tne death of his father, the property was inherited by him along with his brothers. He and his brothers partitioned the property. The tenanted portion fell in his share. It was so shown in the site plan The family members of the respondent consisted of himself, his wife. five sons and two daughters. One of his son was married having two children. His one daughter was also married. His assertion that he was in possession of only two rooms besides kitchen, varandah. temporary bath. latrine, 'kolki. WC and common court-yard. This accommodation was highly insufficient to accommodate himself and his entire family members dependent on him for the purposes of residence.

(2.) This petitioner was duly served. He sought leave to contest the petition, inter alia. on the ground that the respondent landlord concealed the actual actual accommodation in his possession. He suppressed the fact that he was in possession of 7 rooms. By show ing two and a half rooms in his possession he misrepresented me facts. Secondly, the laildlord falsely inflated his family members. His need was not bona fide. The landlord was in possession of six rooms, two kitchen, bath. latrine. WC and open court-yard on the ground floor and one room on the first floor. By concealing the actual accommodation in his possession and falsely representing that he was having only two and a half rooms, respondent tried to mislead the Courts with a mala fide intention. The tenanted premises according to the petitioner was let out for residential and commercial purposes. Respondent landlord's two sons: Ramesh Kumar and Naresh Kumar. were not dependent on him for the purpose of residence. The landlord had entered into an agreement to sell this property to a third person. With this in mind. the respondent landlord asked the eviction of the petitioner. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Rent Controller concluded that no triable issue was raised by the present petitioner and. therefore, declined to grant the leave

(3.) Aggrieved by that order present petitioner was preferred. I have heard Mr. Maheshwar Dayal for the petitioner and Mr.U.L. Watwani for the respondent. The persual of the impugned order show that the learned Additional Rent Controller did not apply his mind to the facts brought out on record by way of affidavit' of the present 'petitioner. Once the tenant in his affidavit disclosed that the landlord was in possession of six or seven rooms which fact the landlord concealed, then to my mind, it amounted to a trible issue. The party Who comes in the court must come with clean hands, If prima-facie, the tenant could elstablish that the landlord Was in possession of more rooms than started J in the petition, then on the face of it raised dispute which required adjudication. To my mind, leave ought to have been granted. The petitioner herein on the basis of the site plan produced on record., coupled with thecertified copy of the site plan-file by the landlord in the civil suit, prima-facie was able to raise a triable issue. It could not be brushed aside nor the Controller could decide the same in the absence of evidence. Whether the landlord was in possession of six rooms or two and a half rooms is a matter which requires evidence. Keeping in view the number of landlord's family and if it is proved that landlord has six rooms in his possession as compaired to two and a half rooms represented by the landlord, learned ARC could consider the need of the landlord differently. The sufficiency or insufficiency of the accommodation is a major issue in petition u/s 14(1)(e) of the Act to prove the bonafide, landlord had. to prove that accommodation in bis possession was not sufficient. In'the petition he represented that two and ahalf room accommodation was: not sufficient, He has not given any justification of additional .requirement if it is proved that he is in possession of larger accommodation, this raises trible issue and if petitioner succeed it may disentitle the landlord of order of possession, tn case landlord had disclosed in petition that he was in possession of six or seven rooms and still needed more accommodation then ofcourse things would have been different. Since there is serious dispute about the accommodation in possession of the landlord hence^tp my mind, leave ought to have been granted.