( 1 ) THIS is a revision under S. 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, intituled by the petitioner to challenge the eviction order passed by Shrimati Manju Goel, 4th Additional Rent Controller Delhi under S. 14 (1) (e) of the said Act. The facts of the case show that the respondent mentioned in the eviction application had applied for leave to defend under deprocedure prescribed by S. 25-B within the time mentioned in the summons, but leave to defend was refused on two grounds.

( 2 ) FIRSTLY, the application was accompanied by the short affidavit stat ing "that the contents of the accompanying application for leave to defend of paras 1 to 5 are true to my knowledge and the same may be read as part of this affidavit", but the learned Additional Rent Controller thought that the paragraphs themselves must be reproduced in the affidavit. Secondly even on the merits and the facts stated in the application, the learned 4th Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that no facts were stated which entitled the tenant to leave to defend.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has attacked the order of the Additional Rent Control on both points. He says that it has been held in two judgments of this Court reported as Gian Chand v. Roop Narain, 1979 Rajdhani LR 469 and Jagir Singh v. Mohinder Kaur, (AIR 1979 Delhi 245) at page 563 of the same report, holding that the mere fact that the affidavit was in short from was insufficient to non-suit the replying tenant. I fully endorse this view. It is too technical to hold that the paragraphs of the application must be reproduced in the affidavit before they can be read as part of the affidavit. The statement in the affidav reading that the contents of the application should be read as part of the affidavit is sufficient. The verification at the bottom of the affidavit swearing to the contents of the affidavit, shows that the Controller had to read the application as part of the affidavit. This short form of affidavit is generally used in almost all Courts in India and can not be disregarded for the purposes of a case under the Delhi Rent Control Act. So, the order of the Rent Cotroller is wrong on this point.

( 4 ) IT is now necessary to deal with the second point because even if the application for leave to defend is dealt with on the merits, the learned Additional Rent Controller has found that no facts are disclosed in the application which whould justify the grant of leave to refend. Three points are mentioned as being facts entitling the respondent the leave to defend. Firstly, it was alleged that the original tenant was Ram Nath whose heirs were the answering respondent Shrimati Leela Wati and two daughters Miss Vijay Kurnari and Miss Indu. It was claimed that these two were necessary parties to the suit. Secondly, it was claimed that Makhan Lal was the owner of the house and the petitioner s ownership was denied. Thirdly it was claimed that the petitioner did not bona fide require the accommodation because she had ample accomodation in the house she was living. It was stated that she was living with her husband who owned a double storeyed house situated in Mohalla Mantola Paharganj, New Delhi. It was said that the entire house was with the petitioner and her family and the ejectment application was filed mala fide. It was also claimed that the ground floor of the house in which the respondent was living was also with the petitioner.

( 5 ) ON these three points, the Rent Controller held that it was not sufficient to claim that Miss Vijay Kumari and Miss Indu were co-tenants. It was also necessary to show that Ram Nath was a tenant earlier. It was held that the Rent Controller strongly felt that the plea about Ram Nath being the original tenant and the other heirs being co-tenants was a sham and bogus plea. On the second point about ownership, it was stated that even the petitioner did not dispute that Makhan Lal was the previous owner from whom the pet