RAMESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. HARPAL SINGH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's petition under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') challenging the order of the Additional Controller dated 8th November, 1979 by which he dismissed the petitioner's application for leave to contest the eviction application filed by the respondent under Section 14(1 )(e) of the Act. Consequently he also passed an order of eviction against the petitioner. Chapter IIIA was inserted in the Act by Act 18 of 1976 with effect from 1st December, 1975. There are two sections 25A and 25B in this chapter. It prescribes a summary trial for applications for recovery of possession filed by a landlord claiming eviction under Section 14(1 )(e) and section 14A of thke Act Section 14A of the Act was also inserted by the said amendment of 1976. Section 25B of the Act prescribes a special procedure for disposal of applications on the ground of bona fide requirement. After the service of summons of the eviction application a tenant is required to obtain leave to contest the eviction application. The tenant is required to file an affidavit staling the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction. Sub-section (5) of Section 25B of the Act provides that leaveo contest the application for eviction shall be granted by the Controller if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession. The landlord is entitled to an order for recovery of possession on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act if he proves the following ingredients prescribed therein :

(2.) All the ingredients are to be proved before the Controller can pass an order of eviction against the tenant. Sub-section (4) of Section 25B of the Act provides that if leave to contest the application for eviction is refused, the allegations made by the landlord in his application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and consequently an order of eviction is to be passed by the Controller in favour of the landlord. If, however, leave to contest is granted, the procedure for disposal of the eviction application is the same as the procedure for disposal of applications for eviction on other grounds. The crucial consideration in eviction cases filed under Section 14(l)(e) is whether a tenant is entitled to leave to contest. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 25B read as under-

(3.) Under sub-section (5) a tenant is required to file an affidavit disclosing the facts which would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an eviction order. Such facts must be material and substantial, and they must be bona fide. Further, it has to be seen that the allegations of facts are not meant to delay the disposal of the eviction application. In other words, the Controller has to discharge an onerous duty to come to the conclusion whether a tenant is entitled to leave to contest. He has to consider whether the facts disclosed by him in his affidavit are so material that if the same are deemed to be proved, the landlord would not be entitled to an order of eviction against the tenant. But if on the basis of the facts alleged in the affidavit of the tenant the Controller is in a position to hold that even if those facts are deemed to be proved, the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction against the tenant, then on the basis of such facts leave to contest need not be granted to such a tenant. Sub-sections (4) and (5) of the Act provide the filing of an affidavit by the tenant with a view to obtain leave to contest. On the other hand, the form of summons specified in the Third Schedule referred to in Section 25B(2) of the Act prescribes that leave to appear and contest the application may be obtained on an application to the Controller supported by an affidavit.