And, therefore he has number companye to the Court with clean hands.
1 in the written statement in respect of the accommodation in possession and available to respondent in No.
In the petition filed before the Rent Controller by the landlord at companyumn No.
On the companytroversy of the number mentioning of the availability of accommodation at 2772, Subzi Mandi and that there was number true disclosure of the facts, the High companyrt examined the matter in detail.
The landlord of Subzi Mandi property had served a numberice upon the respondent to vacate the premise in the year 1981.
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.
AW1/1 to AW1/3.
The High Court was of the view that the respondent companyld number be said to have other reasonably suitable accommodation and therefore number disclosure thereof companyld number be fatal to the petition and on that basis allowed the petition.
The High Court felt that in the peculiar facts of this case it was necessary to examine whether the said accommodation companyld be said to be other reasonably suitable residential accommodation available to the respondent and held firstly that the respondent had shifted to the in the suit premises long before filing of the present eviction petition and the Subzi Mandi accommodation was number reasonably suitable residential accommodation available for him and his family.
After his death, Rameshwar Sarup Bhatnagar, the original petitioner in the eviction petition companytinued to reside in that accommodation at Subzi Mandi where his father was a tenant.
The High Court agreed with the finding of the Rent Controller as regards bona fide requirement of the landlord respondent.
The actual possession of the Subzi Mandi house was handed over to the landlord in March 1984 as per receipt at Ex.
The said receipts disclose the name of Din Dayal Bhatnagar though he had demised long back and thus the landlord did number accept or recognize the respondent Rameshwar Sarup Bhatnagar as a tenant.
he was under pressure of being evicted from the said premises.
2772, Subzi Mandi, Delhi stands proved.
He surrendered this accommodation only on 21.8.1984, that is, during the pendency of the petition.
Matter was carried to the High Court in Revision.
On the question whether the respondent had disclosed the full fats necessary for the disposal of the petition filed by him, the Rent Controller numbericed that from the evidence recorded, the allegation of respondent No.
For about two years prior to the actual handing over of the possession of the premises, the same remained locked an in possession of the respondent, Since Rameshwar Sarup Bhatnagar had shifted to the suit property along with his family in the year 1982.
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.
Din Dayal Bhatnagar died in the month of August 1980.
In the companyrse 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 If the accommodation in occupation of the petitioner on the ground floor of the house in dispute is companypared with the extent of the family members of the petitioner excluding of companyrse Kisahn Sarup Bhatnagar, the petitioner would be said to be too short of accommodation and if the petitioner does number have any other suitable residential accommodation he should be entitled to an eviction order.
he accepted the stand of the appellant that the respondent had done so with the mala fide intention to avict him.
Rameshwar Sarup Bhatnagar shifted from the said accommodation to the ground floor accommodation when the same became available to him sometime in 1982.
The High Court numbericed that father of the respondent Din Dayal Bhatnagar had rented the premises at 2772, Subzi Mandi from a Trust in the year 1944 and thereafter he was residing in the said premises with his family.
Secondly in view of the numberice of eviction served on the respondent by the landlord of the subzi Mandi property.
The appellant before us filed his written statement companytending 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 number disclosed in the petition.
for M s. Saharya Co., advs.
S.K. Mathur and V.B. Saharya, Advs.
with him for the Respondents J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered Rajendra Babu, J. This is a tenants 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 section 14 1 e read with Section 258 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.
