SUBHASH CHAND Vs. M PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the tenant againstthe order of Shri Dinesh Dayal, 4th Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 18/08/1981, whereby the Rent Controller refused to grant leave todefend the eviction petition filed by the landlord, the respondent here, underSection 14(l)(e) and Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

(2.) It is not disputed that the subject matter of the tenancy is a room measuring 9 ft. X 8 ft. It is also not disputed that this room is located in houseNo. 7015, Gali Kumaharan, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi.

(3.) In the application for leave to defend the tenant contended that thesaid room has been given to the tenant by the landlord for commercial purposethat from the very inception the tenant had been carrying on manufacturingfrom that room, and that he was manufacturing ''Kadchi", "Palta", "Chimta","Chaini" etc. It was also stated in the application for leave to defend that thelandlord had instituted a suit against the tenant to restrain the tenant frominstalling heavy machinery in the room, taken by the tenant. It was also contended that the landlord was not the owner of the premises.