IMPORTANT POINT
Concealment of vital facts vitiates the landlord's claim of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J.

1. By way of these petitions, brought under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the petitioner/landlord has challenged dismissal after full dress trials of the two eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act pertaining to two different portions (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises") on ground floor of the larger premises bearing No. 1779, Kucha Latto Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi. The factual and legal matrix being similar, these petitions are taken up together for disposal through this common judgment. On notice, the respondents/tenants entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides and examined the trial court record.

2. Briefly stated, circumstances leading to the present petitions are as follows.

2.1. The petitioner, claiming herself to be the owner of ground floor (of which subject premises are part) and first floor of the said larger premises No. 1779, Kucha Latto Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi, by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated 06.06.1989, filed two eviction petitions, pleading that Shri Goverdhan Dass Daga, father of the respondents was inducted in the subject premises as a tenant and after his death, the respondents are using the subject premises for commercial purposes; that presently, son of the petitioner is running a small shop of golgappa, papri etc. (snacks) and is also taking orders for catering in marriages; that the small shop from where son of petitioner is running his business is not sufficient for his work, so petitioner/landlord is in bona fide requirement of the subject premises to be used by her son; and that the petitioner/landlord has no other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation.

2.2. On service of summons in the prescribed format, the respondents/tenants filed applications seeking leave to contest the eviction petitions on the grounds that the petitioner/landlord had concealed material facts by not correctly disclosing the accommodation available with her; that the petitioner/landlord is also in possession of third floor and fourth floor of the property no. 1778, Kucha Latto Shah, Dariba Kalan, Delhi, in addition to the said larger premises No. 1779; that one of the subject premises is being run by the respondents/tenants as a shop of electrical goods while the other subject premises is being used as a godown of electrical goods; that according to the Sale Deed dated 06.06.1989, there were five tenants namely Ram Devi, Bhag Chand, N.K. Pandya, Gopal Bhargav and Prakash Chand in different portions on the ground floor of the said larger premises, all of whom had already vacated the respective portions under their occupancy; that in addition, the tenants namely Manikant and Nirmal Electric, who were occupying different portions on first floor of the larger premises also had vacated the portions under their respective occupancy; that besides, the petitioner/landlord also has concealed having one shop, one big hall, one godown and a basement in the said larger premises; that the vacant portions of the ground floor are lying locked and thus, the petitioner/landlord is in occupation of the entire first floor, second floor, third floor and fourth floor of the said larger premises and the same are lying locked; that accordingly, the entire building of the said larger premises is lying vacant and is available to the petitioner/landlord alongwith roof, so an illusory requirement has been set up by the petitioner/landlord, therefore, leave to contest deserves to be granted.

2.3. In replies to the applications for leave to contest, the petitioner/landlord vaguely pleaded thus: "The alleged portions vacated by the tenants is not fit for the purpose of shop as the same are inside the property while the shop in possession of the respondent is in front portion and can be used as a shop and is being used as shop. As per own allegation of the respondents the third and fourth floor a