The High Court's jurisdiction in revision under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act is limited to cases involving gross illegality, material irregularity, non-exercise of jurisdiction, or exceeding of jurisdiction.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a tenant of the respondent on the first floor of premises No. B-184, Double Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The respondent filed an application for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in his occupation claiming that he needed the said premises for occupation of himself and members of his family dependent upon him. The respondent s case, therefore, was one which fell within the ambit of clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. As required by the provisions of section 25 B of the said Act, the petition filed by the respondent was dealt with under the said section. Summonses were issued to the petitioner of the petition filed by the respondent in the Form specified in the Third Schedule of the said Act. Consequently the petitioner moved an application dated 9th May, 1979, supported by an affidavit setting out the grounds on which he wanted to contest the eviction petition and praying that he be granted leave to defend the same. The respondent filed a reply to the application moved by the petitioner. Following the procedure prescribed by section 25 B of the Act, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, decided the matter by his impugned order declining to grant leave to the petitioner to defend the eviction petition and ordering his eviction from the premises in his occupation. The statutory period of six months was given to the petitioner to vacate the premises and it was ordered that the order of eviction would not be executed before the expiry of 6 months from the date of the order. The petitioner has filed the present revision. petition contesting the decision to the effect that leave to defend eviction has been declined to him.

( 2 ) THE Additional Rent Controller has based his decision on the principle of law enunciated by this court in numerous decisions. He has cited the same in his order. On merits, examining the pleadings, he has come to the conclusion that the pleas raised by the petitioner were not bona fide or tenable on the face of it. This is what the petitioner challenges by the revision petition filed in this court.

( 3 ) THERE is no dispute regarding what law is applicable. The short question is whether the Additional Rent Controller has presumed facts as proved or not proved when that was not the stage at which it could be done.

( 4 ) THE petitioner in his application for leave to defend the eviction petition pleaded:

(A) That the eviction petition was not bona fide inasmuch as the respondent did not require the premises for himself and the members of his family, but wanted to sell the same. There were negotiations between the petitioner and the respondent for sale of the property, but the transaction could not be finalised as the petitioner had offered Rs. 25,000. 00 for the property, while the respondent was demanding Rs. 40,000. 00. It was also pleaded that the respondent has been availing the services of some unnamed property dealers for getting suitable buyer of the property and some persons had even come and seen the property;

(B) That the accommodation in possession of the respondent comprised of three living rooms, courtyards on both sides, with kitchen, bath and latrine and that was sufficient for him and the members of his family. It was disputed that any married daughter came to stay with the respondent. It was also disputed that one married daughter, whose husband allegedly was away to Udhampur, was staying with him.

(C) The accommodation in occupation of the respondent was ample for his need. The respondent had disputed the averments made by the petitioner in his application. He denied that there were ever any negotiations for the sale of the property or it was ever the intention of the respondent to sell the property to anybody. According to him, he was not possessed of any other property and he wanted bona fide the entire property on the ground floor and the first floor for residence of himself and t