JUDGMENT

U.C.BANERJEE, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THIS appeal is directed against an order of rejection of the civil revision petition by the High Court of Delhi, wherein the High Court categorically came to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of concealment of material facts.

(3) INCIDENTALLY, the appellant sought eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground that he required the tenanted premises bona fide for his residence and for the residence of his son. The High Court proceeded on the basis that there was in fact, a flat allotted to the appellants son which has already been taken in possession by the son and since there is no mention of the availability of such a flat in the body of the pleadings, the petition ought to be rejected by reason of concealment of material facts and hence, the appeal before this Court.

(4) THE learned advocate appearing in support of the appeal very strongly contended that there has been some confusion and mistake of facts which has prompted the High Court to come to a finding of concealment of facts. Strong reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in civil appeal no. 5040 of 2001 (arising out of special leave petition (civil) no. 6437 of 2001), Shri Kishan Chand v. Shri Chiman Lal & Ors. decided on 6/08/2001, wherein, this Court on an identical state of facts set aside the impugned order and the revision petition was remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law.

(5) THE learned advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the order of this Court in Shri Kishan Chands case (supra) covers on all force, the facts herein and as such, a three judge bench Judgment ought to have the precedence in the matter.

(6) WHILE undoubtedly, it is true that the judgment if it has the relevance ought to have a binding effect by reason of the larger bench opinion of the fact but the fact remains that the earlier judgment in Shri Kishan Chands case (supra) dealt with the issue only on the concealment of material facts and not otherwise. The issue over here is not only concealment of facts but the bona fide requirement as well and it is abundantly clear that the learned rent controller in the petition under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 did go into the question of bona fide requirement. While dealing with the same, the rent controller recorded the following findings :

III) PW 1 in his cross-examination deposed that there are 13 rooms in property no. 2516-17, Churiwalan, Delhi and he has no documents to show that other petitioners are living in this property. The case of the respondent from the very beginning has been that the said entire building is in possession of the petitioner no. 1. RW 1 Jagdish Pershad has deposed that the said property no. 2516-17 is owned by the petitioner no.1 and there are 35 rooms in all, in this property and petitioner no.1 is in possession of all the said 35 rooms and no other person is in possession of the said property except the petitioner no.1. This part of the statement of the respondent has not been challenged by the petitioner no.1 at all during cross-examination of the respondent, for the reasons best known to the petitioner no. 1. This clearly shows that the petitioner no.1 admits the aforesaid testimony of the respondent. iv) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for alleged bona fide requirement of petitioner no. 1 only. The discussion above, makes crystal clear that the petitioner no.1 has concealed the material fact that his son named Atul, owns a flat at Pooja apartments, Patparganj, New Delhi in pleadings. The petitioner no.1 has also sought eviction of respondent/tenant for residential requirements of his said son Atul and his family members. In my considered Opinion, the petitioner no. 1 is guilty of concealment of residential accommodation owned by his son at Pooja apartments, Patparganj, Delhi. It is well settle