SHANTI DEVI Vs. D N SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner landlady has challengedan order dated 22/09/1992 passed by the Additional Rent Controller,Delhi granting leave to defend the eviction petition to the respondent tenant.Briefly, the facts giving rise to the petition are that the petictoner filed an evictionpetition under Section 14 D read with Sub-section 25-B of the Delhi Rent ControlAct (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') for eviction ofthe respondent on21.3.1990. Thecase of petitioner is that she is a widow. She is the owner landlady of the tenancypremises which is in occupation ofthe respondent. The said premises was let outby the petitioner's husband to the respondent for residential purpose only. Thepremises is required by the petitioner for her own residence as she has no otherresidential accommodation. The husband of the petitioner died in the year 1981leaving behind a Will bequething therein half of the property bearing No. B-12,West End, New Delhi in favour of the petitioner for life and half of the said propertywas bequethed in favour of the daughter Mrs. Usha N.P. Singh. As a result ofpartition between the petitioner and her daughter, the residential unit in occupation of the respondent fell to the share of the petitioner. The partition between thepetitioner and her daughter had also been recognised by the Delhi High Court. Therespondent has been exclusively dealing with the petitioner as the owner landladyofthe suit premises. The respondent has been all along paying rent to the petitioner.

(2.) The respondent tenant filed an application for leave to defend supported byhis own affidavit under Section 25 B(4) of the Act on 5.1.1991. The impugned ordergranting leave to defend was passed on 22/09/1992.

(3.) Before coming to the merits of the case, I may deal with a preliminaryobjection raised on behalf of the respondent. According to the learned Counsel forthe respondent, this revision petition is not maintainable since it is directed againstan interlocutory order granting leave to defend to the tenant. According to thelearned Counsel for the respondent, the proviso to Section 25 B (8) of the Act onlyenvisages a revision to the High Court against a final order of the Controllerallowing or rejecting eviction petition. As per Sub-seciton (4) of Section 25 B, unlessthe tenant obtains leave to contest the eviction petition, the statements made by thelandlord in the eviction petition are deemed to be admitted by the tenant and aneviction order must follow. However, as per Sub-section (5), the Controller cangrant leave to contest to the tenant if he finds that the affidavit by the tenantdiscloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order forrecovery of possession of the premises on the grounds specified in clause (e) of theproviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14. Sub-section (8) clearly bars any appeal orsecond appeal against an order for recovery of possession of any premises made bythe Controller. However, as per the proviso to the said sub-section, the High Courtmay for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller underthis Section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such orderin respect thereto as it thinks fit. It may be better to reproduce Sub-section (8):"(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery ofpossession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with theprocedure specified in this Section:Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that anorder made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call forthe records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit."