A tenant cannot be granted leave to defend an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1953, unless he discloses facts which would disentitle the landlord from claiming the relief prayed for.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition under proviso to Sub. section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1953 (hereinafler referred to as "the Act") is directed against the order, dated 19th September 1979 passed by learned Rent Controller, Delhi, refusing to grant leave to the petitioner-tenant to defend the eviction-petition filed against it by the responbent-landlord and as a result passing an order for eviction against the petitioner-tenant.

( 2 ) THE case of the respondent-landlord. Col. M. L. Sharma as set up in the eviction petition was that the premises in dispute were let out to the petitioner-tenant. M/s. Indo-American Electricals Ltd. for purposes of residence of their manager or any other officer on 16-9-1966 and the same are now required for occupation as residence for himself and for other members of his family dependent upon him.

( 3 ) IT was also pleaded by the respondent-landlord that he is the owner of the premises and that he has since retired as colonel from military service and has now set up his business in Delhi with his office at Connaught Place.

( 4 ) IT was also stated in the eviction petition that the respondent- landlord is at present living in Delhi in rented house. He wants to live in his own house and that he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.

( 5 ) THE respondent-landlord also pleaded that one of his sons is of marriageable age and in employed at Delhi. He also stated that this son of his is not being married only due to lack of accommodation. The other members of his family consisting of his wife, mother, daughter-in-law and two grand children are perforce staying in Chandigarh as there is no accommodation available to them in Delhi.

( 6 ) IN the eviction petition, the respondent-landlord gave his address as 10/20, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-8.

( 7 ) ALONG with the application for leave to defend, the petitioner- tenant had filed affidavit of Sh. R. K. Bajaj, one of the Managers of the petitioner-company, stating facts which the petitioner claimed entitled the company (tenant) to leave to defend the eviction petition.

( 8 ) IN his affidavit dated 6th October, 1978. Shri Bajaj, inter alia, stated that the landlord had earlier filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of unauthorised construction raised by the tenant and misuser of premises from residential to non-residential. The said petition was fully tried and heard on merits and was ultimately dismissed by the learned Addl. Rent Controller by order dated 11-8-1978. It was contended that had the requirement of the respondent-landlord been bona fide he ought to have claimed of the tenant on this ground and, therefore, he is now estopped from taking the ground of bona fide personal requirement.

( 9 ) IT was also stated that in the earlier proceedings the respondent- landlord had given his address as 3312, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh, which premises belong to the respondent-landlord and where, at all times, he has been residing along with his family.

( 10 ) IT was further stated by the Manager of the tenant, in his affidavit, that the respondent-landlord has no intention to occupy the premises nor the same are required by him for residence for himself or for his family members as the respondent-landlord has never expressed any such intention or requirement except by way of present petition for eviction of the tenant.

( 112 ) IT was also denied that the landlord has set up any business in Delhi or that he was living in a rented house in Delhi.

( 12 ) THAT the sons of the respondent-landlord being dependent upon him was also denied.

( 13 ) AGAIN, it was stated in the affidavit that the eviction petition had been filed with the ulterior motive of evicting the tenant and thereafter letting the premises on higher rent.

( 14 ) IT will be noticed that in this application for leave to defend, neither ownership nor the purpose of letting was disputed and thus it will be deemed to have been adm