( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of dismissal of the application for leave to defend, the petitioners (original respondent) have filed the present revision petition. The impugned order was passed by the Rent Controller on 6. 1. 1999.

( 2 ) MR. Mukul Rohtagi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that the application for leave to defend was filed in 1991 whereas the reply to the said application was filed by the respondent (eviction petitioner) in the year 1998 which would demonstrate that the respondent s requirement was not bona fide. Mr. Rohtagi has argued that the respondent was not the owner of the premises in question as original owner Shri D. V. S. Gupta, who let out the premises through his father Shri Laxmi Narayan to the petitioner in 1944 had sold the property in 1970 to one Dr. Diwan Singh and as Dr. Diwan Singh had not paid the total consideration, therefore, the title of Dr. Diwan Singh was defective and he could not have executed a sale-deed in favour of Smt. Harbans Kaur, the mother of the respondent (landlord/owner ). He has further contended that Smt. Harbans Kaur could not have made any Will in respect of the suit property in favou