( 1 ) THE order of eviction dated November 11, 1986 passed by Shri M. L. Mehta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, on the ground of bonafide requirement of accommodation for the landlady and her family members covered by clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, has been challenged by the tenant in this civil revision.

( 2 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has challenged the eviction order in arguments only on two grounds, firstly, that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that the landlady is not in possession of reasonably suitable residential accommodation is perverse and is liable to be set aside and secondly, that the landlady was guilty of suppressio veri inasmuch as she did not disclose the whole of the accommodation in her possession either in the pleadings or in the map filed alongwith the petition and thus, as the landlady has not come to the Court with clean bands, her claim for bonafide requirement was liable to be negatived on that score. The findings of the Additional Rent Controller that the landlady is the owner of the property in question and premises in possession of the tenant comprising of a room and a kitchen