The tenant is entitled to leave to contest an eviction application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses grounds, whether of fact or of law, which if substantiated at the trial, would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction.

( 1 ) THIS petition under proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 25b of t Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, the Act) is directed against an order of the Third Additional Rent Controller refusing leave to the petitioner to contest the respondent s application under sub-section (5) of Section 25b of the Act for the eviction of the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act.

( 2 ) THE petition was filed in the following circumstances. T. S. Bhatia, respondent, is admittedly the owner of the property in dispute. He was in Government service and retired in the year 1967. The property was built in 1969 and let out to the petitioner for the residence of its officers in 1970. It currently carries a monthly rental of Rs. 1350. The respondent has been living in a rented accommodation on a monthly rental of Rs. 450. The landlord of the respondent filed an application for the eviction of the respondent in 1975. The respondent filed an application for the eviction of the petitioner in March 1976 under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Act on the ground that the respondent bona fide required the premises for his residence and that of the members of his family dependent on him and that the rented accommodation available to the respondent was insufficient for their requirements. The petitioner sought leave under sub-section (5) of Section 25b of the Act to contest the application on a number of grounds. By the impugned order the Third Additional Rent Controller refused to grant leave to the petitioner and has directed its eviction from the premises in dispute. It appears that during the pendency of the proceeding", in this Court a consent order for the eviction of the respondent was made on September 15, 1976 in the proceedings filed against the said respondent by his landlord and in terms of the order the respondent is required to vacate the premises by February 28, 1977.

( 3 ) LEAVE to contest the application for eviction was sought on the ground that the respondent was not the owner of the premises in dispute; that the tenanted premises in the occupation of the respondent was sufficient for the requirement of the respondent; that the premises in dispute were not bona fide required by the respondent; and that the notice of termination of the tenancy was invalid. It was further urged that the proceedings filed by the landlord of the respondent were collusive merely intended to bolster up the claim for eviction. The plea that the respondent was not the owner was dispelled on the basis of the original perpetual lease deed executed between the respondent and the Delhi Administration, which was produced at the hearing of the application, as well as on the ground that the petitioner had not pleaded as to how the respondent was not the owner of the property. It was further held that the bare denial of the petitioner of the respondent s ownership was insufficient to entitle the petitioner to leave. The plea of the petitioner that the tenanted premises in the. occupation of the respondent was sufficient for his requirement and that the respondent did not, therefore, bona fide require the premises in dispute were dispelled on the ground that the respondent was a retired Deputy Secretary of the Government of India and his family comprised of 14 members out of whom 2 were married sons and 3 were grown up sons, who were employed, and were of marriagable age and that the two bed-room-tenanted premises was insufficient for tlie requirement of the respondent and the members of his family. It was further held on a perusal of the correspondence exchanged between the parties, copies of which were produced on behalf of the respondent, that the respondent had been feeling the need to more accommodation since 1974 and has been making demands on the petitioner to vacate. A further finding was returned on the basis of copies of the afforesaid correspondence that the demand for eviction had nothing to do with the claim of the petitioner for repair