Mrs. Santosh Duggal, J.

( 1 ) AFTER hearing the parties, I find that the Addl. Rent Controller has adopted an erroneous approach for apreciating the pleastaken by the petitioner in his affidavit field with application for leave tocontest under Section 25-B (4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (in short the act ). The copy of the affidavit has been annexed with this revisionpetition, which reveals that there was a specific plea to the effect that thepremises were neither let out by the petitioner nor her deceased huband, andthat in fact, it was one Bhisham Kumar Anand who had let out the premises,and it was he who had collected the rent since the inception of the tenancy. Copies of the rent receipts were also filed.

( 2 ) IN the reply affidavit, that was filed on behalf of the petitioner by herattorney, there was no definite and clear averment that it was the petitioneror her deceased husband who had let out the premises. It was asserted veryvaguely that Bhisham Kumar Anand had nothing to do with the property. The Additional Rent Controller had taken into account the affidavits of theparties to see as to whether the defence raised disclosed any such fact whichmay, if proved, disentitle the landlady from the relief claimed in thepetition.

( 3 ) ONE of the main ingredients to be established by the petitionerunder Section 14-D of the Act is that the premises were let out, to therespondent in the eviction petition, by her or by her late husband, and unlessthat is shown to the satisfaction of the Additional Rent Controller to be theposition, the petition under Section 14-D may not be maintainable. It wasincubent on the petitioner, while filing reply affidavit to the application forleave to contest, to make a clear assertion about the premises having beenlet out to the petitioner by her or by her late husband, and also explain thereceipt of rent by Bhisham Kumar Anand, which was prima facie evidenceof receipts of rent filed, by the petitioner. The inconsistency of the standis further betrayed by the reply affidavit to the show cause which has nowbeen filed stating that Bhisham Kumar Anand was the brother of the landlady, and had been realising rent on her behalf. There was no such plea inthe reply affidavit filed before the Rent Controller.

( 4 ) IN fact of this. I am of my considered view that the Additional Rentcontroller committed an error while holding that the defence raised in thisrespect was sham and frivolous, and this fact alone would have entitled thepetitioner for leave to contest.

( 5 ) ANOTHER plea taken in paragraph 4 of the affidavit to the leave tocontest application was that the petitioner was a lady of unsound mind, andshe remained admitted in the Mental Hospital at Shahdara for sufficientlylong time, and had not even recovered from the said mental diseases, and assuch in the eye of law she was not competent person to file the evictionpetition, except through a next friend.

( 6 ) ALL that was stated in the reply affidavit filed by her attorneyshri Khub Chand was that para 4 was false and wrong. There was nospecific denial that she has been admitted in the hospital for mental diseaseat Shahdara. The petitioner also kept away inasmuch as the eviction petitionwas filed by her through an attorney. Shri Khub Chand. Counsel appearing for the respondent is not able to say as to what relationship said Khubchand bore to the landlady/respondent. Even the reply affidivit to theleave to contest application was not filed by her.

( 7 ) IN this setting of facts, I think that the Additional Rent Controllerwas not right in straight way rejecting this defence by characterising it asfalse and sham, and this was also a plea which deserved consideration bygranting leave to contest to the tenant.

( 8 ) NO other plea has been pressed in this revision petition.

( 9 ) I accordingly allow the revision petition limited only to thesetwo pleas, namely, premises having been let out by the respondent/landladyherself or by her deceased husba

Click Here to Read the rest of this document