( 1 ) THIS revision petition under proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) is directed against the order, dated February 23, 1980, passed by Shri J. D. Kapoor, Rent Controller, Delhi, granting leave to the applicant to defend the eviction petition filed against him but restricting the defence only to the point of extent of accommodation available with the landlord.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, Chatar Sain Goel, is in occupation of the premises; bearing Municipal number C-87, Fateh Nagar, New Delhi, consisting of two rooms, kitchen, bath, latrine, store and an open space as a tenant under Puran Singh on a monthly rent ot Rs. 80. 00. On Jan. 16, 1980 the landlord filed an application for eviction under Section 14 (1), (e) of the Act, popularly known as the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The tenant filed an application en February 2, 1980 urder Section 25 B for permission to defend the eviction petition on four grounds. There were- (i) the premises were situated in the slum areas and the application was not competent without the necessary permission of the competent authority under what is knows as the Slum Act ; (ii) the landlord was not the owner of the premises ; (in) the premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purposes and (iv ) the landlord was already in occupation of a spacious building consisting of sufficient accommodation for him and members of his family.

( 3 ) AS observed above, the learned Rent Controller granted permission to defend only on the plea that the landlord was not in occupation of reasonably suitable accommodation.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, the tenant has filed the present revision petition. This came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge who has referred the same to a larger Bench because of divergent opinions in this Court on the question whether restricted leave cabe gradted and also because the question raised is of general importance. That is how the matter has come before us.

( 5 ) SECTION 37 of the Act controls the procedure to be followed by the Controller in disposing of the applications under the Act. Sub-section (1) lays down that no order which prejudicially affects any person shall be made by the Controller under the Act without giving him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the order proposed to be made and until his objection, if any, and any evidence lie may produce in support of the same has been considered by the Controller. Sub-section (2) provides that subject to the rules that may be made under the Act. the Controller shall, while holding an inquiry in any proceeding before him, follow, as far as may be, the practice and procedure of a court of Small Causes, including the recording of evidence. Sub-section (3) deals with award of costs, etc. By the amending Act No. 18 of 1976, the Act was amended and, inter alia, a new chapter, IIIA, containing Sections 25a, 25b and 25c was added. This chapter provides for summary trial of certain applications. Section 25b provides special procedure for the disposal of applications under Section 14 (l) (e ). It is apparent that the purpose of introducing the provisions contained in Section 25 was to provide for speedy trial of such applications. Keeping in view this legislative intent, we find no difficulty in holding that leave could be restricted to one or more points if other points raised by the tenant were found to be without substance. It would avoid unnecessary delay in the disposal of these applications which was the- intent of the legislature in incorporating these provisions.

( 6 ) THIS question came up before Sachar, J. in M/s Viraj Lal Mani Lal v. Shri Satish Swarup 1978 (i) R. C. R. 231. The learned Judge has observed at page 235 as under ;-

"i do not find any difficulty in granting leave to contest restricted to one point. Sub-section (4) of Section 25b of the Act provides that the tenant shall not contest the