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, d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document