H P SHRIVASTAVA Vs. RAM SAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the case, an eviction petition under Section !4(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1959, was filed under the amended procedure introduced in 1976. The tenant made an application for leave to defend taking several grounds. Shri K. P. Verma, II Additional Rent Controller who decided this case refused leave to defend and passed an eviction order under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. The tenant has now come in revision under Section 25 B (8),

(2.) It is necessary to point out that the Rent Controller decided this case on the merits taking into consideration the application for leave to defend, the counter affidavit filed by the landlord and certain documents on record. The procedure adopted by the Rent Controller seems to be contrary to law. What has to be taken into consideration in these cases is to find out if a triable issue arise in the case as held by the Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh, A.I.R. 1958, S.C. 321, and Milk trqm (India) Private Limited and others v. Chamanlai Bros. A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1698. It is well-established that what has to be considered is the pleadings and not the evidence. The stage of evidence only arises after leave to defend has been granted.

(3.) The way in which the II Additional Rent Controller has acted is demonstrated from the manner in which he has dealt with various points raised in the defence. On the question of ownership of the property, the tenant denied the ownership, but the landlord produced certain documents showing that the petitioner were owners. As this is a point connected with title, there can be no objection to this procedure. It is well-settled that in order to raise a triable issue, it is not enough to merely deny facts but some other facts have to be shown which would demonstrate the incorrentness of the landlord's stand. It would have to be shown by the tenant that the petitioning landlords were not owners either because they held the property in some other capacity or because some other persons were the owners. So, there is nothing procedurally wrong with the decision on the point.