NARMADA JOSHI Vs. SH LAXMI NARAYAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred to challenge the order dated 19. 4. 2007 passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi in E-335/06/04 whereby the Rent controller has allowed the petition filed by the respondent-landlord under section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act) and an eviction order has been passed against the petitioner-tenant.

(2.) THE premises bearing No. 24/155, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi is admittedly owned by the respondent/landlord. A portion of this premises consisting of one room and a kolki being used as kitchen with the facility of common latrine and bath room was let out to the petitioner by the respondent on a monthly rent of rs. 500/-, excluding water and electricity charges. The purpose of letting has been admitted by the petitioner-tenant to be only for residential purpose. Leave to defend was granted to the petitioner. The parties went to trial and by a detailed order the eviction petition has been allowed, as aforesaid. The submission made by the petitioner is that in the eviction petition the respondent-landlord had suppressed the fact that his son owned a residential flat comprising four rooms apart from kitchen, bath room, latrine etc. bearing no. B-1/42, Naveentam Apartment, Plot No. 7, Section-IX, Rohini, Delhi. It is argued that on account of this concealment of material fact alone the eviction petition ought to have been dismissed. It is further argued that due to the said concealment the petitioner has not had the opportunity to establish that the said accommodation is reasonably suitable for use and occupation of the landlord.

(3.) THE petitioner has further relied on three decisions of this Court in abdul Hamid and Anr. vs. Nur Mohammad, AIR 1976 Delhi 328 , Hari Mohan Nehru vs. Rameshwar Dayal (17) 1980 DLT 284, Mohd. Usman vs. Shahzad Begum and Ors. 36 (1988) DLT 92 to contend that since the landlord had not disclosed, and had concealed the other residential accommodation available to him from the court, by not making a reference to the same in the pleadings, the claim of the landlord for bona fide requirement of residence cannot be accepted.