( 1 ) IN this Revision Petition the challenge is in respect of the Order dated 28. 9. 2000 passed by the additional Rent Controller, Delhi in which he has declined to grant the Tenant leave to Contest the eviction petition. Such Orders invariably require the court to successfully undertake a tightrope walk, since the competing interest of the tenant and the landlord have to be kept in balance. The Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act ) accorded protection to tenants against eviction. While it contained several grounds on which eviction could be prayed for, in almost all of them, the Tenant was afforded an additional protection. For example, even if there is a default in payment of rent, the tenant is not to be evicted for his first default; if it is found that the Tenant has misused the property the Landlord has still -to prove that such misuser is detrimental to his interests; if the Tenant uses the premises contrary to any conditions imposed on the landlord , the former can nonetheless resist eviction if he pays compensation to the Authority concerned. In respect of eviction on the grounds of the bona fide need of the Landlord for residential user of the demised property, the legislature made a conscious- shift in the approach and attitude, in terms of Chapter III-A and Section 25-B in particular of the Act. These provisions indicate that in this genre of cases, a summary trial should be conducted. This part of the Act should not be ignored and every effort must be made to implement its intent.

( 2 ) IT would be best to refer to the observations of A. P. Sen, J. in the partly dissenting opinion delivered by him in Precision Steel and Engineering Works and another v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, (1982) 3 SCC 270.

"the whole object of sub-section (5) of Section 25-B is to prevent the taking of frivolous pleas by tenants to protract the trial. Where the tenant seeks leave to contest, the application for eviction Under Section 14 ( 1 ) proviso (e) or under Section 14-A, he must file an affidavit under sub-section (4) of Section 25~b raising his defence which must be clear, specific and positive and must also be bona fide and if true, must result in the dismissal of landlord s application. Defence of negative character which are intended to put the landlord to proof or are vague or are raised mala fide only to gain time and protract the proceedings, will not entitle the tenant to the grant of the leave. The Controller cannot set down the application for hearing without making an order in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 25-B. The trial must be confined only to such grounds as would disentitle the landlord to any relief. The controller has the power to limit the grant of leave to a particular ground. If the Controller finds that the pleadings are such as would, entail a trial, then he is bound to grant the tenant leave to contest. The Controller is not a court but he has the trappings of a court, and he must conform to the rules of, natural justice. The landlord has a right to be afforded an opportunity to meet the allegations made by the tenant in the affidavit for leave to contest and filed under sub-section (4) of Section 25-B and there is a corresponding duty imposed on the controller to hear the parties on the question whether such leave should or should not be granted under sub-section (5) thereof and apply his mind to the pleadings of the parties and the material-on-record. It is difficult to lay down any rule of universal application for each case must- depend on its own facts. The controller must endeavour to resolve the competing claims of landlord and tenant to the grant or refusal of leave under sub-section (5) of section 25-B, by finding a solution - which is just and fair to both the parties. The scope of Section 25-B (5) is restricted and the test of triable issues under Order 37, Rule 3 (5) of the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable, as the language of the two provis