( 1 ) THE main question which arises for consideration before this Bench is as to under what circumstances should leave to contest be granted to the tenant under section 25b (5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act ) when an application for eviction under proviso (a) to sub-sec, (1) of Section 14 read with section 25b of the Act Act is filed against him by the landlord. This judgment will dispose of Civil Revision No. 1012 and Civil Revision No. 1013 of 1980 as the facts are identical and they, in fact, arise from the same order.

( 2 ) THE respondents (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the landlords) are the owners of House No. 518, Gali Ram Nath, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The two respondents are brothers. Anapplication for eviction was filed by them on 7. 480 under section 14 (l) (e) read with section 25b of the Act. It-was contended in the application that respondent No 1 was aged about 68 years and was residing in a rented premises at Tagore Garden, New Delhi. It was further stated that the said premises had been taken by respondent No. I on rent for a period of 11/2 years with effect from 1st March, 1979 upto 31st August, 1980 after permission had been granted under section 21 of the Act by the Additional Rent Controller by order dated 28th February, 1979. It was also mentioned that the said house at Tagore Garden has to be vacated by 31st August, 1980 and, therefore, the premises in dispute were required bona fide by respondent No. 1. With regard to respondent No. 2 it was stated that he was employed in Bombay but had retired and had been granted extension. This extended period of his employment was expiring on 19th July, 1980 and thereafter he would settle in Delhi along with his family.

( 3 ) ON summons being served, the tenant filed an application for leave to contest the eviction application. The application was supported by a detailed affidavit containing grounds on which leave was sought.

( 4 ) THE principal grounds which were raised by the petitioners for the grant of leave to contest mainly were :

(1) That all the heirs of the late father of the landlords had not been impleaded/made parties and that the landlords were not the only owners of the premises in question; (2) Respondent No. 2, namely, Pyare Lal Chopra, had been residing in Bombay since 1947 where he was also working and he did not bona fide require the accommodation in Delhi ; (3) That the other landlord, namely, Tirath Ram Chopra, had voluntarily vacated an accommodation which was under his tenancy after accepting high and valuable consideration and his alleged requirement of the premises in question was not bona fide ; (4) Tirath Ram Chopra had tried unsuccessfully to increase the rent of the premises in dispute and thereafter negotiated to sell the house to the tenants for Rs. 50,000. 00 but the deal fell through for want of complete title of the landlords ; (5) The requirement of the landlords was not bonafide and had been. got up by Tirath Ram having vacated the previous residence and taking one on limited tenancy with the mala fide object of misleading the Court; (6) The premisas were situated in slum area and permission for filing the eviction petition had not been obtained by the landlords; (7) Neither of the landlords requires the premises for themselves or for members of the family as neither of them have any members dependant upon them. and, in fact, they want to sell the house at a huge price after getting the same vacated :

( 5 ) THE landlords filed a reply to the aforesaid affidavit. The grounds raised by the tenants were denied and it was reiterated that the premises in question were required by them bona fide for their residence and for the residence of their family members. With regard to ownership it was stated that the house belonged to their father Shri Behari Lal Chopra. having been purchased vide a sale deed dated 1. 12. 1955, and after his death the landlords and their mot