A mere denial of ownership by the tenant is not sufficient to grant leave to contest an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenant must provide specific details about who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner.

( 1 ) SINCE a short point is involved, with the consent of the parties I have heard this matter in order to dispose of the same.

( 2 ) BY the impugned order, the Additional Rent Controller has granted leave to contest the eviction petition to the respondents-tenants. The petitioner-landlady has challenged the said order of the Additional Rent Controller by way of present petition. The Additional Rent Controller granted leave to contest the eviction petition mainly on two grounds, i. e. ownership and bonafide need to the petitioner-landlady.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the petitioner is a tenant on the second floor vf the property in suit since 1st May, 1978. Previously. Smt. Kamlawati was the owner of the property. She died on 26th March, 1990. The petitioner is the daughter of Smt. Kamlawati and has always been residing in the same property alongwith her mother. According to the petitioner, she has become the owner of the property in view of a Will of Smt. Kamlawati dated 20th July, 1978. It is a registered Will, certified copy whereof has been placed on record of the Trial Court. The original Will itself was kept in the custody of the Sub-Registrar as is apparent from the endorsement contained on the certified copy of the Will. The property already stands mutated in the name of the petitioner in the records of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

( 4 ) IN his appliction for leave to contest, the tenant denied the ownership of the petitioner with respect to the property in suit. The tenant went on to deny the fact that the petitioner was the daughter of Smt. Kamlawati. However, the tenant does not say in his application for leave to contest as to who is the owner of the property if the petitioner is not the owner. A reference to the application of the respondent- tenant for leave to contest shows that he admits that Smt. Kamlawati was the previous landlady or the premises. While taking the plea that the petitioner wants to enhance the rent, the respondentin fact indirectly admits that the petitioner is the onwer of the property. In para 6, the plea of the respondent is "the only intention of the petitioner is either to get the premises vacated as referred or in the alternative to get the rent enhanced from Rs, 500. 00 p. m. onwards and in fact it was also the intention of the deceased landlady Smt. Kamla Wati Bawa when she wanted to get the rent enhanced from Rs. 500. 00 p. m. to Rs. 800. 00 p. m. " This shows that there is a admission that Smt. Kamlawati Bawa was the previous landlady. Further, when the tenant alleges that the intention of the petitioner is to enhance rent or in the alternative to get the premises vacated, there is an indirect admission that the petitioner is the landlady of the premises. In view of this nature of the case of the tenant on the question of ownership of the petitioner, it is clear that the denial of ownership is malafide and is intended solely to prolong the case. I am of the view that the respondent tenant is taking this plea totally with the malafide object of protracting the proceedings. I find no substance in such a vague and frivolous plea on the question of ownership of the petitioner. A tenant who has been living in the premises for about twenty years and seen the petitioner living with her mother in the same house on the first floor has gone to the extent of saying that the petitioner is not the daughter of Smt. Kamlawati. This shows the extent to which the tenant is prepared to go. The tenant seems to be a person having no respect for truth and one who in order to achieve his object is prepared to speak all sorts of lies.

( 4 ) COMING to the question of personal bonafide need of the petitioner and her family qua the premises in suit, the number of family members of the petitioner is not denied. The family of the petitioner consists of herself, her husband, two sons, one of whom has got married during the pendency of the petition. The accommodation available wit