( 1 ) THIS revision has been preferred by the petitioner/landlord because learned Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC) granted leave to contest to the respondent/tenant. The learned ARC vide order dated 16th December, 1995 found that the respondent had raised triable issues challenging the bonafide requirements of the landlord.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by that order landlord preferred this petition, inter alia, on the grounds that having accommodation with the petitioner is not sufficient. His needs being bonafide the leave could not have been granted. Moreover, no legal or factual pleas were raised which could non-suit the petitioners.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT/tenant contested this petition by raising legal objection of the maintainability of this petition besides contesting the petition on merits. According to respondent, the order under challenge being an interlocutory order cannot be challenged by way of revision. On merits the contended that requirement of the petitioner being not bonafide as he has sufficient accommodation hence his petition was rightly dismissed.

( 4 ) BEFORE I deal with the case on merits, I would like to deal the legal objection raised by the respondent. Ms. Urmila Khanna appearing for the respondent contended that the order allowing leave to defend is not a final order. Under proviso to Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) revision would lie only against a final order. The order granting leave is merely a permission to contest the case on merits, therefore, cannot be called a final order. Hence the provisions of Section 25-B (8) of the Act could not be attracted.

( 5 ) I gave my thoughtful consideration to this objection of Ms. Urmila Khanna, at the outset it can be said that this argument of Ms. Khanna at the first flast appears to be very convincing. However, if we go deep into the mailer we can say it does not stand the test of law. On the touch stone of law it would miserably fail. By granting leave to defend the learned ARC has given a right to the tenant to oust the petitioner/ landlord from his right of immediate possession. Such an order if not allowed to be agitated it would discriminate qua one set of persons i. e. landlords. It is now settled principle of law that when leave is refused the tenant has a right to file revision. Refusing leave means his right to defend is taken away. Therefore, he is permitted to approach this Court. Similarly by granting leave a vested right is created with the tenant which disentitle the landlord of his right of immediate possession of his house. In fact the scheme of Chapter III-A of the Act shows that the tenant as of right cannot contest the application for eviction unless he obtains leave from the Controller. In default of obtaining leave the statement made by the landlord in his application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant. Thus if leave is pot granted the landlord shall be entitled for an order of eviction from the said premises. If leave is refused eviction follows. But if leave is granted the right of eviction which was to flow stood deprived. It is in this context and eventuality it can be said that such an order can be challenged by way of revision thereby invoking the provision of Section 25-B (8) of the Act. When the right of the landlord of immediate eviction is deprived he can File a petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Act against such an order. For support reference can be had to the decision of this Court in the case of K. . K. Sarin V. Mis Pigott Chapman and Co. AIR 1992 Delhi 361 where this Court while rejecting such an objection as raised by Ms. Urmila Khanna held that revision was maintainable even when leave to defend is granted. Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Chowdhry V. Smt. Narain Devi Taneja reported in (1980) 2 SCC 120 while considering Chapter-111 of the Act under the heading "summary Trial of Certain Applications " consisting of three Sections, namely, Section