JUDGMENT P. C. Balakrishna Menon, C.J.— Both these revisions under section 16 (8) of the Hiraachal Pradesh Urban Rent, Control Act, 1987 (the Act, for short) are by two tenants against the same landlord and are directed against the order for their eviction passed by the Rent Controller, under section 16 (4) of the Act The respective orders show that leave to defend sought for was refused and eviction ordered on the basis that the respective tenants shall be deemed to have admitted the averments contained in the applications for eviction. 2. The applications before the Rent Controller related to two tenements on the ground floor of a building called the Bisht Bhawan situated in Sanjauli within the Municipal Limits of Simla. It is a two storeyed building owned by the respondent-landlord. The ground floor of the building is in the occupation of the two tenants in two separate apartments, A two room set on the first floor is in the occupation of another tenant, by name, Prabhu Lal One room on the first floor is in the occupation of yet another tenant Chet Ram and the landlord himself is in possession of a two room apartment on the first floor. 3. There is no dispute that the respondent is a specified landlord within the meaning of section 2 (i) and the present applications for eviction were filed within the time specified in section 15 (2) of the Act. He will be entitled to an order of eviction without contest if the conditions prescribed under section 15 (i) of the Act are satisfied and the affidavits tiled by the tenants for leave to contest do not disclose such fact as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for eviction. 4. In the present case the landlord has admitted that he is in possession of part of the same building, a two room apartment on the first floor where he has stored his house-hold articles. According to him that two room apartment in his possession is not sufficient or suitable for the occupation of himself and his family consisting of himself his wife, two sons and an invalid brother dependent on him. According to him that two room apartment in his possession is not sufficient or suitable for the occupation of himself and his family consisting of himself his wife, two sons and an invalid brother dependent on him. The tenants in their respective affidavits filed in support of their applications for leave to defend had inter alia raised the contention that the apartment in the same building in the possession of the landlord is sufficient for his occupation and is a suitable accommodation for himself and his family. 5. On the facts of the case adverted to above, I am of the view that the Rent Controller was wrong in declining the tenants leave to defend. 6. A specified landlord, under section 15 (2) of the Act, is entitled to recover immediate possession of the residential building in the occupation of the tenant if his application to the Controller is accompanied by the requisite certificate and an affidavit to the effect that "he or his spouse does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside". In the present case the petitioner-landlord has disclosed his possession of the two room apartment on the first floor of the building but that, according to him, is not a suitable accommodation for himself and his family consisting of five members mentioned above. 7. The tenants have in their respective applications for leave to defend, supported by their affidavits, raised a contention that the apartment in the possession of the landlord in Bisht Bhawan is a suitable accommodation for himself and his family. The averments in these applications supported by the affidavits if proved would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for eviction under section 15 (2) of the Act. 8. Sub-section (5) of section 16 of the Act is extracted below: — "The Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would disentitle the landlord or the specified landlord or, as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grandchild or widowed daughter-in-law of such specified landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in sub-clause (Hi) of clause (a) of sub-section (3y of section 14 or in section 15." 9. The question as to whether the accommodation already in the possession of the landlord is sufficient for his purposes can be determined only after a trial and the parties are allowed to adduce evidence. The Supreme Court in Smt. Jamna Devi and others v. Kude Ram and another, AIR 1982 SC 1456 considering similar provisions under the Delhi Rent Control Act, stated at page 1457 : . "The unilateral declarations have no evidentiary value as such. What is considered improper is converting the stage of granting or refusing to grant leave into a full-fledged trial circumventing the prescribed procedure. Even documents are not properly proved and yet decision is followed thereon. We are, therefore, of the view that there is a case in which leave to contest ought to have been granted." 10. The learned Counsel for the landlord points out that under section 15 (2) of the Act, all that is required to be established by the landlord is that he or his spouse does not own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area unlike under the Delhi Rent Control Act where he has also to establish his bonafide personal requirement. 11. It is true that the bonafide personal requirement as such is not referred to in section 15 (2) of the Act, He has nevertheless to establish that neither he himself nor his spouse does own and possess any other suitable accommodation in the local area in which he intends to reside. In C Z). Korpal v. Captain A. K. Madan and others, AIR 1982 SC 1455, a case arising out of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Supreme Court observed : •The respondents claimed eviction of the appellant on the ground of bonafide personal requirement. The appellant was refused leave to defend the suit for eviction even though the ground on which the eviction was sought was bonafide personal requirement and this ground was disputed by the appellant. We are of the view that this is a fit case ia which leave to defend should have been granted by the Additional Rent Controller and an opportunity should have been afforded to the appellant to defend the suit". 12. We are of the view that this is a fit case ia which leave to defend should have been granted by the Additional Rent Controller and an opportunity should have been afforded to the appellant to defend the suit". 12. In Precision Steel & Engineering Works and another v Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518, also a case under the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Supreme Court stated at page 1534: "What then follows. The Controller has to confine himself indisputably to the condition prescribed for exercise of jurisdiction in sub-section (5) of section 25-B In other words, he must confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant. If the affidavit discloses sub facts no proof is beaded at the stage which would disentitle the plaintiff from seeking possession, the mere disclosure of such facts must be held sufficient to grant leave because the statute says on disclosure of such facts the Controller shall grant leave. It is difficult to be exhaustive as to what such facts could be but ordinarily when an action is brought under section 14 (1) proviso (e) of the Act whereby the landlord. seeks to recover possession on the ground of bonafide personal requirement if the tenant alleges such facts as that the landlord has other accommodation in his possession ; that the landlord has in his possession accommodation which is sufficient for him ; that the conduct of the landlord discloses avarice for increasing rent by threatening eviction ; that the landlord has been letting out some other premises at enhanced rent without any attempt at occupying the same or using it for himself ; that the dependents of the landlord for whose benefit also possession is sought are not persons to whom in the eye of law the landlord was bound to provide accommodation ; that the past conduct of the landlord is such as would disentitle him to the relief of possession ; that the landlord who claims possession for his personal requirement has not cared to approach the Court in person though he could have without the slightest inconvenience approached in person and with a view to shielding himself from cross-examination prosecutes litigation through an agent called a constituted attorney ; these and several other relevant but inexhaustible facts when disclosed should ordinarily be deemed to be sufficient to grant leave". 13. 13. The suitability or otherwise of the accommodation in the admitted possession of the landlord is a matter for adjudication by the Rent Controller and I am clearly of the view that the respective tenants in these cases should have been granted leave to defend under section 16 (5) of the Act. The petitioner being a specified landlord the enquiry is summary vide section 16 (7) of the Act, The Act provides for speedy relief to specified landlords and applications for eviction at their instance cannot brook much delay. 14 Since I find that the impugned orders of eviction declining the tenants-leave to defend cannot be sustained in law, 1 set aside these orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and grant the tenants leave to defend the applications for eviction. 15. The parties will appear before the Rent Controller on 27-8-1990 for taking appropriate direction from him in regard to the trial of the matter. The tenants are directed to file affidavits-in-reply to the applications for eviction on or before 10th September, 1990 and in no case will they be granted an extension of time. If they do not file their replies within the aforesaid time the Rent Controller may proceed ex parte against them. The Controller is directed to dispose of these applications for eviction before the end of October, 1990. 16. The Revision Petitions are allowed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Revision petition allowed.