TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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 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:- If the accommodation in occupation of the petitioner on the ground floor of the house in dispute is compared with the extent of the family members of the petitioner excluding of course Kishan Sarup Bhatnagar, the petitioner would be said to be too short of accommodation and if the petitioner does not have any other su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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. Din Dayal Bhatnagar died in the month of August 1980. After his death, Rameshwar Sarup Bhatnagar, the original petitioner in the eviction petition continued to reside in that accommodation at Subzi Mandi where his father was a tenant. Rameshwar Sarup Bhatnagar shifted from the said accommodation to the ground floor accommodation when the same became available to him sometime in 1982. The landlord of Subzi Mandi property had served a notice upon the respondent to vacate the premises in the year 1981. The actual possession of the Subzi Mandi house wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approached the Court with the necessary candor required under law in not disclosing the availability of the premises. In the petition filed before the Rent Controller by the landlord at column No. 18, he has claimed that the suit premises is required by him for his occupation for himself and members of his family dependent on him and he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Again in column No. 19 at para (vi), the respondent states that he has no other residential accommodation except the suit property. In the affidavit filed by the respondent, the appellant has no answer to the petition filed by the respondent for his eviction. He has referred to the accommodation in house No. 2772, Gali Lala Ram Roop, Subzimandi in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has given a notice to him to vacate the premises in 1981. 7. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that Under Section 25B(8) proviso, the powers of revision of the High Court were limited and would not extend to the re-examination of findings of fact in the case and suppression of the fact as to the availability of the premises was one such finding. The Rent Controller also found that with a mala fide intention to evict the appellant from the suit premises he shifted the suit premises from Subzi Mandi. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision in Han Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury, [1962] Supp 1 SCR 933, and Sushila Devi and Ors. v. Avinash Chandra Jain and Ors., AIR1987SC1150 . He submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntial purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation: 10. In making a claim that the suit premises is required bona fide for his own occupation as a residence for himself and other members of his family dependent on him and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation is a requirement of law before the Court can state whether the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his use and occupation. In doing so, the Court must also find out whether the land ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Under Section 25B(8) proviso of the Delhi Rent Control Act is very limited one, but even so in examining the legality or propriety of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the High Court could examine the facts available in order to find out whether he had correctly or on firm legal basis approached the matters on record to decide the case. Pure findings of fact may not be open to be interfered with, but in a given case the finding of fact is given on a wrong premise of law, certainly it would be open to the revisional court to interfere with such a matter. In this case, the Rent Controller proceeded to analyse the matter that non-disclosure of a particular information was fatal and, therefore, dismissed the claim made by the lan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
