Failure to disclose full accommodation and shifting stands on habitability fatal to bona fide requirement claim.

The petitioner, owner of premises B-7, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, sought eviction of the respondent (UCO Bank) under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, 1958.

The petitioner claimed a bona fide residential requirement for himself and his large family, asserting that his current accommodation (one room on the ground floor, three on the first, and a barsati on the second) was insufficient, especially given his and his wife's age-related knee problems.

The respondent contested this, noting the petitioner had previously filed a civil suit for possession (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction) without mentioning personal need.

The respondent also noted that the petitioner had filed other eviction petitions for adjacent shops to open a restaurant, implying a commercial rather than residential motive.

The Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dismissed the petition on January 15, 2018, finding concealment of available accommodation.

Whether the petitioner satisfied the ingredient of "non-availability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation" under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

Whether the petitioner’s requirement was bona fide or vitiated by the concealment of material facts regarding existing floor space and prior litigation.

The court applied Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which allows eviction if the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for themselves or family members, provided no other reasonably suitable accommodation is available.

It relied on the principle from *Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta*, establishing that while the landlord is the judge of his requirements, the court must objectively ensure the need is honest and sincere, and that alternative accommodation is comparison-tested for suitability.

Further, it applied the limits of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act as defined in *Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.* and *Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua*, which restrict the High Court from reappreciating evidence unless the lower court’s order is perverse or suffers from an error apparent on the record.

The Court found that the petitioner failed to approach the court with "clean hands," as he suppressed the full extent of his available accommodation.

During cross-examination, the petitioner admitted to possessing five bedrooms and multiple kitchens/toilets, contradicting his initial claim of having only four habitable rooms.

The Court noted a contradiction in the petitioner’s stance: he claimed the second floor was uninhabitable due to repairs being "too costly," yet expressed intent to renovate the tenanted premises if vacated.

Crucially, the Court observed that the petitioner had filed concurrent eviction petitions for adjacent shops claiming a need to open a restaurant, which undermined his claim that the subject premises (which lacked windows and served as a bank strong room) were required for residential purposes.

The preparation of his mother-in-law’s Voter ID card just months before filing the petition was viewed as an attempt to manufacture a requirement.

The Court held that the petitioner’s concealment of material facts and his contradictory commercial requirements for adjacent portions of the same building disqualified his claim of bona fide residential need.

The revision petition was dismissed, as the impugned order was neither arbitrary nor perverse and fell within the legal parameters of the DRC Act.