RAM NARAIN ARORA versus ASHA RANI AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 188 · Decided: 31-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAM NARAIN ARORA 
v. 
ASHA RANI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 31, 1998 
B 
!DR. A.S. ANAND ANDS. RAJENDRA BABU, J.I.] 
Re111 Colltrol and Eviction : 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 : 
C 
Section 14( l)(e)-Bona fide requirement of landlord-Landlord did 
not disclose in the petition about l1is having another accommoda-
tion-Reasonably suitable residential accommodation-Availability of-Held, 
Question intc11nired with the question regarding bona fide requirement-17zat 
the landlord has another reasonably suitable residential accommodation is a 
D good defence for fl1e tenant-But whether that accommodation is more 
suitable than the suit premises--Such a question would not necessarily 
depe11d upon the pleading:,~Hence, non-disclosure by landlord regarding 
availability of a11other accommodation is not fat al to the eviction proceedings 
if both paJties understood the case and placed mate11·a1s before the cowt, and 
neither party is prejudiced. 
E 
Section 25(B)(8) proviscr-Revision-Scopc-Pure findings of fact--1n-
te1ference with-In revision-By High Cowt-Rent Controller took the view 
that 11on-discfos11rc i11fonnation was fatal lo the cl'iction proceedings-Held, 
Findings of fact given on a wrong premise of law can be inte1fered with-In 
F the circumstances of the case, High Cowt lightly re-examined the matter and 
took a different view--Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-S. 115. 
Practice and Procedure. 
Pleadi11gs--Vag11e pleadings-Effect of-Held: Not fatal to the eviction 
G proceedings if both pwties understood the case and placed mateiials before 
the cowt and neither pwty is prejudiced. 
The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) read 
with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for eviction of the 
appellant-tenant on the ground of respondent's bona fide re11uirement of 
H the house. The appellant filed his written statement contending that the 
188 
·-> 
RAM NARAIN ARORA v. ASHA RANI 
189 
landlord had alternate accommodation at Subzi Mandi and he had A 
deliberately shifted to the disputed premises with an ulterior motive to 
make out a case for the eviction of the appellant and this fact of availability 
of the said premises in Subzi Mandi had not been disclosed in the petition. 
In the course of the proceedings, the Rent Controller recorded a linding 
that the accommodation in occupation of the landlord was too short and 
if he did not have any other suitable residential accommodation he was 
B 
entitled to an eviction order. 
, 
On the question whether the respondent had disclosed the full facts 
necessary for the disposal of the petition filed by him, the Rent Controller 
noticed that from the evidence recorded, the allegation of the appellant in C 
the written statement in respect of the accommodation in possession and 
available to the respondent in Subzi Mandi stood proved. And, therefore, 
the respondent had not come to Court \\ith clean hands and so with ma/a 
fide intention to evict the appellant. 
· 
The matter was carried to the High Court in Revision. The High 
Court agreed with the finding of the Rent Controller as regards bona fide 
requirement of the respondent-landlord. On the controversy of the non-
disclosure of the availability of accommodation at Subzi Mandi and that 
there was no true disclosure of the facts, the High Court examined the 
matter in detail. The High Court noticed that the father of the respondent 
D, had rented the premises at Subzi Mandi from a Trust in the year 1944 
and thereafter he was residing in the said premises with his family, D died 
D 
E 
in 1980. After his death, R, the original petitioner in the eviction petition 
continued to reside in that accommodation at Subzi Mandi where his 
father was a tenant. R shifted from the said accommodation when the same 
F 
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 was 
handed over to the landlord in March 1984 as per receipt. The said receipt 
disclosed the name of D though he bad demised long back and thus the 
landlord did not accept or recognize the respondent R as a tenant. For G 
about two years prior to the actual handing over of the possession of the 
premises, the same remained locked and in possession of the respondent, 
since R had shifted to the suit property along with his family in the year 
- 1982. The High Court felt that in the pecul

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.