Judgment

Rajendra Babu, J.-This is a tenant’s 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. The appellant before us filed his written statement contending 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 not been 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