P.K.BHASIN, J.

This revision petition had been filed by the petitioner-tenant under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(‘the Rent Act’ in short) against the order dated 03.12.1999 passed by Additional Rent Controller rejecting his application for grant of leave to defend the eviction petition filed against him by the respondent-landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act in respect of two rooms and an open courtyard in house no. 1/2772 Ram Nagar, Loni Road, Gali No. 9, Shahdara, Delhi which had been let out to him(hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘premises in dispute’).

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in the year 1998 under Section 14(1)(e) read with section 25-B of the Rent Act on the ground that his family consisted of himself, his wife, his two married sons, their wives and children and two married daughters. His sons alongwith their families were living in the same house of which the premises in dispute formed a part. The respondent himself was living in a separate rented premises in Katra Gokal Shah, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. It was further pleaded in the eviction petition by the respondent that he required the premises in dispute for his own residential purpose as he wanted to shift to his own house after vacating the premises where he was already living as a tenant since his landlord was wanting him to vacate. His family was divided into pieces for the purpose of residence at two different places because of paucity of accommodation and so he needed the premises in dispute.

3. An application dated 19.12.1998 under Section 25-B(4) of the Rent Act for grant of leave to defend the eviction petition was filed by the petitioner-tenant in which he had pleaded that the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord was based on false and baseless allegations as there was no bona fide requirement of the respondent-landlord for the premises in dispute as out of total built up area of 400 sq.yds. the petitioner-tenant was having a very small area of about 25/26 sq. yds. Built up portion under his tenancy and that in case he was not granted the leave to defend he would suffer irreparable loss.

4. The learned Additional Rent Court rejected the leave application of the petitioner-tenant vide impugned order dated 03.12.1999. The relevant observations made in the impugned order are re-produced below:-

“5. Before discussing the facts on merits, I consider that crucial question before the Court is that whether averments made in the rejoinder can be considered or not for the grant of leave to defend. Ordinarily speaking the averments made in the rejoinder are to be taken into consideration. Why facts in the present case are somewhat peculiar. Rejoinder is normally filed to explain certain averments made in the W.S. A rejoinder can never be meant for introducing altogether new facts. If her rejoinder is used for this purpose then respondent has to be given another opportunity for filing rejoinder. I consider that there would be no end to it. Even civil procedure code does not provide for filing of rejoinder. A rejoinder is normally a repetition of averments made in the petition with the clarifications of the new facts mentioned in the W.S. In the present case, an application for leave to defend was filed which disclosed almost no ground for grant of leave to defend. To cover up this gap an application for amendment was moved which was dismissed vide detailed order. Till today the order dated 23-7-99, has not been set aside by any superior Court. Now the respondent has taken new grounds in the rejoinder. If these averments are taken into consideration, the purpose of dismissing amendment application would be frustrated so, therefore, at the outset I am not inclined to take into consideration the new facts incorporated in the rejoinder.

9. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the respondent has merely taken the plea that becau