( 1 ) DINA Nath Sharma, respondent herein (petitioner before Trial Court) sought eviction of his premises under the tenancy of the petitioner herein under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act ). Leave to defend was sought, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent herein was not the landlord/owner of the premises in question nor he let out the premises, that the premises was let out for residential-cumcommercial purpose, that the landlord had sufficient accommodation in his possesion. By the impugned order dated 25th September, 1996 the learned Additional Rent Controller declined to grant the leave to defend, hence this petition.

( 2 ) THE landlord in the eviction petition had pleaded that the poperty in question was in the name of his mother. His mother made a will and bequeathed this property in his name. That by virtue of the will dated 12th January, 1991 he succeeded to the estate of his mother Smt. Ram Wati. That the tenanted premises formed part of the estate left behind by his mother. He thus became owner of this property. The petitioner herein in the leave to defend application specifically pleaded that the probate obtain