IMPORTANT POINTS
The Authority/Court is not expected to examine the merits and demerits of the grounds raised in the application for grant of leave to contest.
If the grounds raised prima facie disclose a defence which, if accepted, may result in non-suiting the landlord from claiming eviction, the tenant is entitled to obtain leave to contest the eviction proceedings on merits.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 04.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RCR No. 76 of 2013 whereby the High Court dismissed the revision filed by the appellants herein against the judgment dated 13.08.2012 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi by which the leave to contest the application filed by the appellants-tenant has been dismissed and the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") filed by respondent No.1 was decreed.

3. We herein set out the facts, in brief, to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal.

4. One Miri Mal was the owner of the shop situated on the ground floor of property bearing No. 1548/V, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110 006 (hereinafter referred to as "the suit shop"). Miri Mal let out the suit shop to one Ram Prakash in 1944 on monthly rent of `Ek Ana'. Miri Mal died in 1974 leaving behind his widow-Smt. Ram Piari, who became the owner/landlady of the suit shop by inheritance. After the death of Miri Lal, Ram Piari started collecting rent from Ram Prakash. Ram Prakash died in 1989 leaving behind his son (appellant herein). Smt. Ram Piari died issueless in 1994.

5. Almost after 17 years of the death of Smt. Ram Piari, on 28.07.2011, Respondent No.1 herein claiming to be the adopted son of Miri Mal and Smt. Ram Piari, filed an application under Section 14(1)(e) of Act seeking appellants' eviction from the suit shop being Case No. E-167/2011. Respondent No.1 sought eviction, inter alia, on the ground that he is the adopted son of Miri Mal and Smt. Ram Piari, therefore, became the owner and landlord of the suit shop on their death as their adopted son by inheritance. Respondent No.1 sought eviction on the ground of his bona fide need to start a business in the suit shop.

6. In order to prove his ownership over the suit shop, respondent No.1 filed some documents which included one adoption deed dated 14.03.1978 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Ram Piari.

7. The appellants, on receipt of the summons of the application, filed an application with an affidavit under Section 25B(4) of the Act by raising grounds therein and sought leave to contest the application filed by respondent No.1 for eviction. Since the issue relating to the ownership of respondent No.1 over the suit shop, on the strength of adoption deed surfaced for the first time in these proceedings, the appellants in his leave to contest the application denied the ownership of respondent No.1 over the suit shop so also the relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The appellants also denied the bona fide need set up by respondent No.1 contending, inter alia, that alternative suitable accommodation in the building in question is available to respondent No.1 on other floors and hence the plea of bona fide need is not genuine. These were essentially the grounds on which the appellants sought leave to contest the application on merits.

8. Respondent No.1 denied the averments made by the appellants in the application for leave to contest. The appellants then filed rejoinder and reiterated their grounds already taken in the application for leave to contest.

9. By order dated 13.08.2012, the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application filed by the appellants for leave to contest and passed an eviction order against the appellants from the suit shop.

10. Felt aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed revision before the High Court. By impugned judgment dated 04.08.2014, the High Court dismissed the revision.

11. Challenging the order of the High Court, the appellants have filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

12. Heard Mr. Nikunj Dayal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Gurukrishna Kumar, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 refused to acknowledge the receipt of the service of notice issued to him under registered