( 1 ) THE facts of this revision are that petitioner filed an application in the Court of the Rent Controller Delhi, against respondent U/s 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking his eviction from her house No. D-53 Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The respondent moved an application for leave to defend which was granted to him on 3-4-1978. He filed written statement contesting the petition on several grounds. Controller by his order dt. 1. 12. 78, dismissed the eviction petition. He held that petitioner is in bonafide requirement of the premises but rejected the application on the ground that the service of notice U/s 106 TPA is not proved and that the application related only to a part of the premises. Hence, this revision by the land lady.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent contended at the very outset that no revision lies against the impugned order. But, this contention cannot be accepted. This court has been of the view that revision contemplated by the proviso of Sec. 25 B (8) does not lie against any order rejecting or accepting the prayer for leave to defend the suit, and lies only against an order accepting or rejecting an eviction application, vide Devi Singh v.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document