ORDER 1. This civil revision preferred under the provisions of S. 16(8) read with S. 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987, is directed against the order dated 28-12-1990 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Shimla. The brief facts of the case necessary to understand its back-ground are that set No. 16, Roop Mahal (Eastern Wing), cart Road, Shimla (herein-after referred to as the premises in dispute) was in possession of the petitioners as tenants. Major Joginder Lal Sachdeva, res-pondent, purchased the premises in dispute and thereafter filed an application for eject-ment of the petitioners under the old Act inter alia on the ground of bona fide necessity. This application was allowed by the Rent Controller but was challenged in appeal during the pendency of which the Rent Control Act was amended and a stipulation was introduced that a purchaser of tenanted premises could not maintain an application for ejectment for a period of five years from the date of purchase. This resulted in the withdrawal of the appeal. 2. It was on 9-11-1989 that the present application for eviction was moved by Major Sachdeva who invoked the provisions of S. 15 of the new Rent Control Act alleging that he was due to retire on Superannuation on October 31, 1990 and, therefore, was specified landlord under the Act add further that he or his spouse did not own or possess any other premises in Shimla Urban Area or even in the rest of the country. He prayed for ejectment of the petitioners. 3. The petitioners, after service of sum-mons on them, appeared before the Rent Controller and filed an affidavit to show the grounds on which Major Sachdeva would be disentitled to claim possession of the premises in dispute, thus praying for leave to defend the application for their ejectment. A counter-affidavit was filed by Major Sachdeva and the learned Rent Controller as stated above after hearing the parties refused to grant leave to the petitioners to defend the application. Hence, an order for their eviction was passed. 4. Before dealing with the arguments addressed by Shri Bhupinder Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, the scope of the present petition may be examined. Hence, an order for their eviction was passed. 4. Before dealing with the arguments addressed by Shri Bhupinder Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, the scope of the present petition may be examined. It is postulated under Sub-Sec. (8) of S. 16 of the Himachal Pradesh Rent Control Act, 1987, that an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the controller under S. 15 of the Act is not liable to be challenged by filing an appeal or a second appeal. The powers of the High Court, however, for the purposes of satisfying itself that the said order of the Rent Controller is according to law and for that purpose call for the record of the case and pass such orders as it may think fit have been retained by way of a proviso added to the above mentioned S. 16(8). This obviously limits the scope for examining the present case since the High Court is not to act as a Court of Appeal. In fact the producer laid down in S. 16 is special in nature and the legislative intendment clearly discernible from it is that a tenant should not be permitted to raise absolutely frivolous and untenable grounds of defence and thereby delay the object sought to be achieved viz. the right to recover immediate possession of the premises to persons who come within the definition of specified landlords. 5. Shri Bhupinder Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, has laid particular em-phasis on the averments made in para 9 of the affidavit which are to the effect that Major Sachdeva had been permanently residing in Delhi and that he had never come to Shimla for the last 20 years and had no intention of settling at Shimla. His contention is that the averment supported by affidavit, is sufficient at the present stage of the proceedings to give rise to a plausible defence, which, if proved during the trial, would certainly disentitle Major Sachdeva from being put into possession of the premises in dispute. Shri Gupta has sought reliance in support of his above contention from the law laid down in Preci-sion Steel and Engineering Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518 ratio of which has been followed by different High Courts. Shri Gupta has sought reliance in support of his above contention from the law laid down in Preci-sion Steel and Engineering Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 SC 1518 ratio of which has been followed by different High Courts. I have perused the above authority and find its crux to be that what is required to be seen at the stage of granting of refusing leave is to confine consideration to the averments made in the affidavit of the tenants and to gauge its plausibility as distinguished from proof. There cannot be any dispute with respect to the above proposition of law which otherwise too is binding on this Court but then the facts of the Precision Steel and Engineering Works are totally different. One of the points in issue in that case was whether the lease was merely for residential purpose or for residential-cum-commercial purpose. The averment made on behalf of the tenant was supported by the contents of a deed of license which the tenants pressed was as good as creating tenancy. Furthermore the ground of personal requirement pressed in the eviction petition was sought to be refuted by raising a specific plea that the landlord was residing at 32, Anand Lok, New Delhi and that he had another building at 52, Anand Lok, New Delhi which was equally big. It was on those facts, amongst others, that the Honble Supreme Court held that a plausible defence stood raised. 6. In the present case all that has been averred by the petitioners in para 9 of the affidavit is that Major Sachdeva has no intention to settle down and occupy the premises in dispute at Shimla. It has not been disputed that he has no other residential property in the entire country. The allegation pertaining to his Superannuation and, there-fore, being a specified landlord is also not disputed. Mere averment raising a defence cannot be equated with the existence of a plausible defence. There has to be something more in the averment as to satisfy the conscious of the Court that the tenants have a defence which if proved could disentitle the landlord from being put into possession of the tenanted premises. I have no reasons to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Rent Controller in this behalf. I am also in broad agreement with other conclusions recorded by him. 7. I have no reasons to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Rent Controller in this behalf. I am also in broad agreement with other conclusions recorded by him. 7. As a result I find no force in this petition which is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The petitioners are also allowed time 30-4-1991 immediately after which Major Sachdeva would be entitled to recover possession. Revision dismissed.