Judgment

KAILASAM, J.:- This appeal is by special leave by the landlord against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi whereby it allowed a revision of the respondent-tenant and set aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Delhi, rejecting the application of the respondent seeking permission to contest the proceedings for eviction filed by the appellants under Section 14-A (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

2. The appellant, Shri B. N. Muttoo, Inspector General of Police, leased the property No. F-9, East of Kailash, New Delhi, to the respondent from 15th September, 1972 at a monthly rent of Rupees 2,200 exclusive of electricity and water charges. The lease was for the use of the premises for residential and/or professional purposes only and not for commercial purposes. The lease agreement was renewed from time to time and the respondent became a monthly tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. On 18th July, 1974 the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the respondent on the grounds of misuser, sub-letting and bona fide requirement. The petition was registered as Suit No. 182 of 1974 and is still pending.

3. The first appellant, B. M. Muttoo, retired as Inspector General of Police of 30th November, 1975. While in office he was occupying premises bearing No. C-II/77 Moti Bagh I, New Delhi, allotted to him by the Government. On 9th September, 1975 the Government took a decision that Government took a decision that Government servants who own houses in the locality should vacate the Government accommodation allotted to them within 3 months from 1st October, 1975. On 9th December, 1975 a notice was served on the first appellant by the Deputy Director (Admn.) stating that the Government by its Office Memorandum No. 12031 (1) /74-Pol.II dated 9th September, 1975 required all Government officials who own houses in Delhi and New Delhi and have also been allotted Government residence to vacate the Government residence before the stipulated date failing which penal rate of licence of market rate shall be charged besides necessary action to evict him from the Government residence. On the same day the appellant filed the present suit for eviction of the respondent. On 16th January, 1976 the respondent applied for leave to defend. On 10th March, 1976 the Rent Controller refused leave and decreed the suit filed by the landlord. A revision petition was filed by the respondent before the High Court which allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Rent Controller and remanded the proceedings to the Rent Controller for disposal according to law. Against the order of the High Court allowing the revision by the respondent the present appeal has been preferred to this Court by the landlord.

4. The question that arises in this appeal is whether the Rent Controller was right in refusing leave to the respondent to defend the eviction petition filed by the landlord.

5. In order to appreciate the point that arises for consideration it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Delhi Rent Control Act (Act 59 of 1958) came into force on 31st December, 1958. By Chapter III the right of the landlord to evict the tenant was restricted. Sec. 14 prohibited any order or decree for recovery of possession of any of the premises being made by any court in favour of a landlord except under certain circumstances. The landlord was required to make an application to the Controller for recovery of the possession on one of the grounds mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (1) in Section 14 (1). The provisions of Section 14 (1) (e) which are relevant may be referred to:-

"14. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant :

Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an ord