S. S. Chadha ( 1 ) THIS revision petition has arisen from the order dated 5th February, 1979 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi declining an application under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for leave to file certain additional documents. ( 2 ) SMT. Shanti Aggarwal (respondentlandlady) filed a petition for eviction under Section 14 (1) (b) and Chapter lll-A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against Shri Chittar Mal (petitioner-tenant ). The summons under the Act were issued to the tenant who filed an application under Section 25 (B) (iv) of the said Act for leave to defend. After consideration of the material on the record, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi came to the conclusion that the affidavits of the tenant have disclosed the facts, which if proved will disentitle the landlady from claiming eviction of the tenant under Clause (b ). The tenant filed the written statement. The landlady filed the replication and the case was fixed for evidence of the landlady on 1st December, 1977. The landlady closed the evidence on 25th October, 1978 when the case was adjourned to 5th and 6th of February, 1979 for the tenant s evidence. ( 3 ) THE tenant moved an application dated 3rd January, 1979 under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code for leave of the Court to place certain documents on the record on the ground that these documents are very material for proving the purpose of letting which was residential-cum-commercial, The explanation for delay in filing the documents given is that these documents were mixed up with some old papers and the tenant came into their possession vary recently. The application was resisted by the landlady. In the impugned order the Additional Rent Controller observed that the perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent that no such plea was ever taken by the tenant, that one Rukhmani Devi who was the original owner of the premises, and not the landlady herself, had been issuing the rent receipts or bills in order to show that the premises were lei for residential-cum-commercial purposes The documents were not allowed to be filed at the belated stage. ( 4 ) THE copies of the record before the Additional Rent Controller have been produced for the perusal of the Court. ( 4 ) THE copies of the record before the Additional Rent Controller have been produced for the perusal of the Court. In the eviction petition filed by the landlady, she mentions that the premises are residential and were let for residential purposes. In the application under Section 25 (B) (iv) of the said Act, the tenant takes the plea that the premises were not let for residential purposes only. The Controller while considering the application of the tenant under Section 25 (B) of the Act notices the plea of the tenant that the premises were not let for residential premises alone. After the grant of leave, the tenant files the written statement and again pleads that the premises were let for residential-cum-business purposes and there is a denial that the premises were let only for residential purposes. Before the landlady can succeed in a petition for eviction based on the ground under Section 14 (1) (e), she has to establish, inter alia, that the premises were let for residential purposes. The purpose of letting, therefore, has to be established as a fact. Any document relating to the purpose of the letting is a relevant document. the consideration of which would enable the Controller, to arrive at a correct decision The Controller, proceeds on a wrong assumption that no plea of letting purpose was ever taken by the tenant in the written statement. The landlady had in para 12 of the eviction petition stated that she purchased the property in 1970 and that Shri Chittar Mal was a tenant in respect of the said premises under the previous owner at the time the landlady purchased the property by the sale-deed dated 5th September, 1970 and as such Shri Chittar Mal became a tenant under the landlady by operation of law on the same terms and conditions. It is the common case that Smt. Rukmani Devi was the previous owner. The Rent Controller, passed the impugned order in oblivion of the facts recorded in the pleadings. The impugned order, therefore, clearly suffers from irregularity and illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. I, therefore, quash the order dated 5th February, 1979 and direct that the application under Order 13 Rule 2 of the CPC be granted conditional on payment of Rs. 200 as costs (which will include the costs of Rs. 50 and Rs. I, therefore, quash the order dated 5th February, 1979 and direct that the application under Order 13 Rule 2 of the CPC be granted conditional on payment of Rs. 200 as costs (which will include the costs of Rs. 50 and Rs. 100 already imposed by the Controller) for the delay in bringing on record these documents and to compensate the landlady for unnecessary adjournments. ( 5 ) THE landlady closed her evidence on 25. 10. 1978. The case is now fixed for the evidence of the tenant on 25. 7. 1979. In the interest of justice, the landlady is allowed to lead additional evidence on 25. 7. 1979,