JUDGMENT

DESAI, J. (on behalf of himself and Baharul Islam, J.) (Majority view):— A provision conferring power enacted to mollify slogans chanting public opinion of speedy justice, if not wisely interpreted may not only prove counterproductive but disastrous. And that is the only raison detre for this judgment because in the course of hearing at the stage of granting special leave Mr. D. V. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent straightway conceded that this is such a case in which leave to defend could never have been refused, Unfortunately, however, not a day passses without the routine refusal of leave, tackled as a run-of-the mill case by the High Court in revision with one word judgment rejected, has much to our discomfiture impelled us to write this short judgment.

2. First the brief narration of facts. Respondent M/s. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal (Hindu Undivided Family) through, Prem Deva Tayal. constituted attorney of Niranjan Deva Tayal (landlord) moved the Controller having jurisdiction by a petition under S. 14 (1) Proviso (e) (for short S. 14 (1) (e)) read with S. 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958, (Act for short), for an order for recovery of possession of the premises being, front portion of premises bearing No. B-44. Greater Kailash Part I, New Delhi, on the ground that the premises were let out for residential purpose and are now required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself and the members of his family dependent on him and that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable accommodation. To this petition he impleaded M/s. Precision Steel & Engineering Works (tenant), a firm and Shri B. K. Beriwala constituted attorney of the firm. Landlord alleged in his petition that the premises in question were first given on leave and license and subsequently relationship of lessor and lessee was established and that the tenant is in possession since Oct. 1, 1971. Landlord further alleged that he now requires the premises for himself and the members of his family consisting of himself, his wife and two school going children. He admitted that he has been employed in India since 1965 but was posted at Bombay in 1970 and returned to Delhi in 1972. He went to Saudi Arabia and has now returned to India. It was alleged that on May 1, 1974, he called upon the tenant to vacate the premises but the request has fallen on deaf ears. It was specifically alleged that as the landlord has now taken up a job and has settled down in Delhi and that he has no other suitable accommodation, accordingly he bona fide requires possession of the demised premises for his personal occupation. It was alleged that M/s. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal (HUF) is the owner of the suit premises and Shri Niranjan Deva Tayal is the Karta of the HUF and second notice dated June 22, 1979 was given under instructions by the constituted attorney Prem Deva Tayal. Even though the landlord who sought possession of the premises for his personal requirement was in Delhi at the relevant time i.e. in 1979, the petition was also filed through the constituted attorney and Niranjan Deva Tayal who seeks possession for his use being in Delhi and available is conspicuous by his absence throughout the proceedings.

3. On the petition being lodged the Controller directed summons to be served in the prescribed form. On service of the summons the tenant being a firm M/s. Precision Steel & Engineering Works, and its constituted attorney Shri B. K. Beriwala appeared and filed an affidavit seeking leave to contest eviction petition. In the affidavit tenant contended that respondent 1, i.e. M/s. Precision Steel & Engineering Works is the tenant and respondent 2 does not claim any interest in the premises in question in his personal capacity and ought not to have been impleaded as a respondent. While denying that there is any undivided family styled as Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal it was contended that the petitioner is not entitled to file a pet