A tenant is entitled to leave to defend an eviction petition if he raises triable issues that, if substantiated, would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Section 25 (B) (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 is directed against the order dated December 23, 1978 pasted by Shri J. D Kapoor, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi declining an application for leave to defend filed under the provisions of Section 25 B of the said Act and directing the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises.

( 2 ) THE Respondents-landlords filed a petition for eviction under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 of the said Act for eviction of the petitioner from the premises comprising of two rooms, passage, verandah, kitchen, W. C. court yard and a bath bearing municipal No. 6404/2, Block No. 7-B (popularly known as Block No. 7), Gali No. 4, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Ward No. 16 New Delhi. Summons were issued to the petitioner-tenant in the form specified in 3rd Schedule. On the receipt of the summons issued by the Additional Rent Controller, the tenant moved an application for leave to defend and to contest the case. The application was supported by a detailed affidavit of the tenant in terms of the application. Reply to the application was filed by the landlords supported by an affidavit of Shri S. K. . Gupta, one of the respondents. The learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi considered the averments made in the affidavits and expressed that the tenant has in his affidavit raised the following defences in support of his claim of being granted the leave to contest the eviction petition :-

(1) that the premises are situated in slum area and the petition is not maintainable as no permission from the Competent Authority (Slum) has been obtained; (2) that the premises were let to the tenant with clear understanding that he will be entitled to use the premises for carrying on his business besides using it as his residence and he has throughout been using the premises for residential-cum commercial purposes; (3) that no rent note as alleged by the landlords was ever executed at the time of commencement of tenancy and signatures of the tenants were obtained on blank paper; (4) that the present accommodation in occupation of the landlords is more than sufficient as the landlords are in occupation of entire second floor besides the first floor accommodation.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller noticed the principles seitled by this Court governing the grant or refusal of leave to the tenant for coniesting the eviction petition filed by the landlords by staling that if the facts disclosed by the tenant in the affidavit filed under Section 25 B of the said Act are of such nature which when presumed to be correct or found substantiated would non-suit the landlord that is to say would disentitle the landlords from seeking eviction of the tenant, the tenant should ordinarily be granted leave. It was further noticed that the facts disclosed and the defences raised by the tenant in the affidavit should be specific, positive and of categorical nature and should give rise to triable issues. After stating these basic principles, the Additional Rent Controller erred in law in going the merits of the pleas raised by considering the affidavit of the tenant and the counter-affidavit of the landlords.

( 4 ) THE principles for the grant of leave have been stated by H. L. Anand, J. in "ram Chond v. Gokal Chand", 1977 R. L. R. 73 and I will do well to reproduce the same:-

"it appears to me that on their plain language and on a combined reading of sub-Section (4) and (5) of Section 25 B of ihe Act, in the context of the compulsions that led to the amendment, the provisions are clear as to the circumstinces in which leave to contest should be granted and do not admit of any controversy. Ordinarily, a party who brings a case to Court, must prove such facts as would entitle it to the relief and a bare denial, therefore, by the party that contests such an action would be sufficient to put the question, whether of fact, or of law in issue between