JUDGMENT

DESAI, J. (on behalf of himself and Baharul Islam, J.) (Majority view):— A provision conferring power enacted to mollify slogans chanting public opinion of speedy justice, if not wisely interpreted may not only prove counterproductive but disastrous. And that is the only raison detre for this judgment because in the course of hearing at the stage of granting special leave Mr. D. V. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent straightway conceded that this is such a case in which leave to defend could never have been refused, Unfortunately, however, not a day passses without the routine refusal of leave, tackled as a run-of-the mill case by the High Court in revision with one word judgment rejected, has much to our discomfiture impelled us to write this short judgment.

2. First the brief narration of facts. Respondent M/s. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal (Hindu Undivided Family) through, Prem Deva Tayal. constituted attorney of Niranjan Deva Tayal (landlord) moved the Controller having jurisdiction by a petition under S. 14 (1) Proviso (e) (for short S. 14 (1) (e)) read with S. 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958, (Act for short), for an order for recovery of possession of t