Ravi Ahuja vs Rajeev Kumar And Another on 23 December, 2021
16. The petitioner moved another application on 19.09.2014 for local inspection. After filing of the objection by the respondents, the said application was also rejected by means of the order dated 17.04.2015. During pendency of the appeal the petitioner had again moved an application for inspection on 14.03.2016, which was rejected by means of the order dated 28.10.2016. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court in petition Rent Control No.28539 of 2016(Ravi Ahuja versus Rajeev Kumar & Anr.).The said petition was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 18.04.2018 upholding the order passed by the apppellate authority on the application for inspection on 28.10.2016. Therefore this issue was final between the parties and is not considerable in this petition. However the petitioner has not disclosed all these facts in this petition and tried to allege that prescribed authority has allowed his release application without complying its own order dated 24.04.2014 passed on the application of the petitioner for local inspection. Therefore this Court is of the view that the present petition suffers from material concealment of fact and infact taking a false plea which is not available to the petitioner.