KALYAN SINGH Vs. J P GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed u/s 25B(8) by the tenant against the order of controller dated 1-5-76 by which he has refused leave to contest and has passed order for eviction against petitioner on the ground mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section 14 of the Act.

(2.) The material facts of the case are that the respondent landlord instituted a petition for eviction on llth December, 1975 for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and bonafide personal necessity being respectively mentioned in clauses (a) and (e) of the relevant proviso Notice of the application was issued to the petitioner before me in the ordinary way and not according to the summary procedure. When the petitioner tenant appeared before the Controller, the respondent landlord gave up the ground mentioned in clause (a) and elected to prosecute the ground mentioned in clanse (e) only. The petition was therefore tried in a summary manner. In the application for leave, which is supported by an affidavit, the petitioner tenant urged a number of grounds and stated facts contesting the petition. They were replied to by the respondent. The Controller below has repelled the contentions of the peti- tioner tenant without any evidence and has refused his application and passed an order for eviction.

(3.) The amended provision of law has come up for consideration before this court in a number of cases. Reference may, however, be made to Smt. V. L. Kashyap v. R. P. Puri, ILR (1977) I Delhi 22 : 1977 Rent Law Reporter 397, which has been decided by me. In that case, I had observed that disputed questions of fact, if raised clearly, specifically, positively and bonafide must be tried on evidence and cannot be decided merely on the pleadings of the parties of the affidavits supporting them. In that judgment it has been also indicated what defences were open to be taken in a petition for eviction under clause (e) and those under section 14A, and it was pointed out that under clause (e) all the defence were open to the tenant which he could take prior to the amendment and that the substantive Law on the subject has not been materially altered and only a summary procedure has been prescribed. Mr. Bharat Inder Singh submits that the order of the Controller is contrary to the rule laid down by this court and is contrary to law and is therefore, not sustainable.