( 1 ) RESPONDENT/landlord filed a petition for eviction against the present petitioner on the ground of his bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act ). It was respondent s case before the Additional Rent Controller that except the properly in question he had no other alternative suitable accommodation available to him. He has been forced by the circumstances to live in one room in his mother s house bearing No. D-7, N. D. S. E. Part-1, New Delhi. His family consisted of himself, his wife and one grown up daughter. It was not possible for all of them to sleep in one room. They per force have to sleep in the drawing room on. the floor. Thus the accommodation available at D-7, N. D. S. E. Part-1, New Delhi could not be called reasonably suitable alternative accommodation for his residence and for he residence of his family members dependent upon him for the purpose of residence. He had further pleaded that in house No. D-7, N. D. S. E. , Part-1, New Delhi there arc only two rooms besides drawing room, kitchen, toilet etc. Out of these two rooms, one room is in occupation of the mother and the other with his brother. His need is minimum two rooms one for himself and his wife and one for his grown up daughter. He also needs drawing and dinning rooms and additional accommodation for his servant which is not possible at D-7, N. D. S. E. Part-1, New Delhi. Moreover, his mother who is aged old woman requires a female attendant all the time for whom also a room is required. It was in this background that the respondent sought eviction of this petitioner.

( 2 ) AFTER receipt of Court summons, this petitioner filed leave to contest application within time. Leave was sought primarily on the ground that the respondent concealed the accommodation available to him at D-7, N. D. S. E. P. art-1, New Delhi. That the said house at D-7, N. D. S. E. Parl-1, New Delhi was ajoint property of the respondent and his other family members. The said house was built by his father. After the death of respondent s father property devolved on all the legal heirs including the respondent. Thus the respondent was co-owner of that properly. The tenanted property was let out by the respondent to the petitioner in 1987. At that lime also the respondent with his family was residing at D-7, N. D. S. E. Part-1, New Delhi. That his circumstances had not changed, threfore, his need of this premises could not be called bonafide. By the impugned order, however, leave to defend was declined by the learned Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC ). Aggrieved by that order present petition has been preferred.

( 3 ) MR. ISHWAR Sahai, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner contended that the learned ARC declined leave on two counts, namely, there is no accommodation available to respondent at D-7, N. D. S. E. , Part-1, New Delhi because of two rooms, one was in occupation of Y. K. Garg and other with his mother. But the fact of the matter according to Mr. Sahai is otherwise. The said brother of the respondent, Shri Y. K. Garg had not been living at D-7, N. D. S. E. Part-1, New Delhi. He had, in fact shifted to A-770, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi for the last more than three years. He also obtained his ration at the said address at Sarila Vihar. This fact was concealed by the respondent when he filed the eviction petition. While declining the leave, the learned ARC look this factor to be an important consideration. That is why it has been held that the brother of the landlord alongwith his family has been residing at D-7, N. D. S. E. Part-1, New Delhi whereas the documentary evidence shows otherwise. Petitioner placed some documents on the record of this Court to show that Mr. Y. K. Garg, brother of the respondent herein had shifted to house No. A-770, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi and that is why he got his ration card transferred from N. D. S. E. to Sarita Vihar. These documents have been urged, by the peti