MALOOK SINGH Vs. LAKHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notwithstanding concurrent findings of Rent Controller dated 13.12.2012 as also of the Appellate Authority dated 1.5.2014, ordering eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground of personal necessity, counsel for the petitioner has claimed that there is no bonafide need of the son of the petitioner and that the entire litigation had been carried on by the respondent-landlord just to enhance the rate of rent of the premises. Citing Jiya Ram Versus Purshotam Das, 1984 2 RCR(Rent) 411, Joti Prasad Gongel Versus Chand Bihari Lal (dead) thru LRs,2012 1 RCR(Civ) 52 and Ravinder Sood and another Versus Mohan Lal, 2013 2 RCR(Rent) 91, it is claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the nonapplicant/ landlord had not approached the Rent Controller with clean hands and rather had concealed and misstated the facts.

(2.) Referring to averments in petition (Annexure P-1), it is claimed that it was no where pleaded by the landlord that he was in possession of two premises one of which was under his possession whereas the other one was on tenancy with another tenant. It is claimed that this factual position was concealed by the landlord and playing fraud on the Rent Controller, the ejectment of the petitioner was sought.

(3.) When reference to averments in the petition (Annexure P-1) is made, there is para 2(b), wherein there is specific plea regarding personal necessity. For ready reference, it is appended as below:-