Mahinder Narain,j. ( 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. ( 4 ) ALONG with the affidavit no document of title was filed to indicate that thelandlord was not the owner of the premises. I do not think it would be properthat leave is granted to a tenant to defend the eviction petition on the mereassertion that the person who has instituted the proceedings for eviction, is notthe owner. By itself, it would not raise any triable issue. The Registration Act1908 which is in force in India, requires that transfer of title in property valuedat more than Rs. 100. 00 should be compulsory registered. Any person can obtaina copy of a registered title deed which is registered as a document of title beforethe Registrar of Assurances. Prima facie, it would be necessary when the titleis disputed, to produce the title deed which discloses the fact that the petitioneris not the owner, and the ownership is lying with somebody else. In theabsence of such a document, I am not prepared to say that the assertion in thegrounds to leave to defend that the petitioner is not the owner of the property,is sufficient by itself to grant permission to leave to defend the evictionpetition. ( 5 ) DELHI is an old city. In theabsence of such a document, I am not prepared to say that the assertion in thegrounds to leave to defend that the petitioner is not the owner of the property,is sufficient by itself to grant permission to leave to defend the evictionpetition. ( 5 ) DELHI is an old city. All the "galis" and "koochas" in this city areknown to be residential areas. The commercial areas in the old city are thebazars and "katras". It cannot be presumed that in residential areas premiseswould be given for commercial or manufacturing purposes. In the inslant case,the landlord has asserted that the premises was residential. It was asserted inthe petition that the premises are being "misused now for commercial purposesalso in addition to residential use. " The petitioner did not produce along withthe application for leave to defend any certificate or licence from the authoritiesconcerned about permission being granted to him to carry on manufacturingactivities. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act would require such a licence. No licence has been produced. It is a mere assertion in the grounds for leaveto defend that commercial activities are being carried out. ( 6 ) BESIDES this. the premises which has been let, is 9 ft. X 8 ft. This islocated in a residential area. It is hardly suitable for carrying out "manufacturing activities", excepting in a very minor way, and practically as a side-line. In any case no place which is 9 ft. X 8 ft. can be termed as a "factory" orcommercial space, especially when located in a "gali", which as stated above, isa residential area. ( 7 ) I agree with the view expressed by the Additional Rent Controllerthat the application for leave to defend and the affidavit do not disclose thefacts which, if proved, would be sufficient to entitle him to defend. It wasstated by the Supreme Court in the case Precision Steel Engg. v. Premdevniranjadcv, 1982 Rajdhani Law Reporter S. C. 781, that if the affidavit disclosefacts which would be sufficient to grant leave, leave should be granted. Theaffidavit in the instant case, in my viewt does not disclose such facts. ( 8 ) THIS revision petition, therefore, fails, and the same is dismissed. Ihowever, make no order as to costs. ( 9 ) AT the oral request of the counsel, three months time is granted to thepetitioner to vacate the premises from today.