Mrs. Santosh Duggal, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein filed an eviction petitionunder Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended byamending Act of 1988 (in short the Act ). By the aforesaid amendment, thelegislature provided that if the landlady is a widow and the premises let out byher or by her husband are required by her, for her own residence, she mayapply to the Controller for recovery of immediate possession of the tenancypremises. ( 2 ) AFTER service of notice of the eviction petition, the tenant, (respondent herein), applied for leave to defend under Section 25-B (5) of the Act. Oneof the grounds taken, inter alia, was that since the petitioner had let out thepremises to the respondent after she became widow, the provisions of Section 14-D were not available to her. The Rent Controller treated this objection as to the maintainability of the eviction petition as a preliminary point,and on the strength of a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as41 (1990) (4) DLT 483, Dr. P. P. Kapur v. Union of India and others, held that inorder to be entitled to seek eviction by resort to provisions of Section 14-Dof the Act, the premises ought to have been let out before the landladybecame widow. In view of the admitted facts, that the premises were let out tothe respondent by the petitioner after she become widow, the Rent Controllerin view of the above quoted judgment of this Court, dismissed the eviction petition, as not maintainable. ( 3 ) IN this revision petition, it is pleaded that the view taken by therent Controller while dismissing the eviction petition no longer holds good,in as mush as the Supreme Court in a case reported as 43 (1991) Delhi Lawtimes 456, EMC Steel Limited. Calcutta v. Union of India and another hasexpressly overruled the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Dr. P. P. Kapur scase (supra), to the effect that in order to succeed on the basis of Section 14-Dof the Act, the petitioner must have become widow before the letting out. Itruled very clearly that it is immaterial whether the premises had been letout by the husband of the lady during his life time or by herself after becoming a widow. ( 4 ) MS. Itruled very clearly that it is immaterial whether the premises had been letout by the husband of the lady during his life time or by herself after becoming a widow. ( 4 ) MS. Patney appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on thisjudgment expressly overruling the view taken by this Court in the case ofdr. P. P. Kapur (supra), and has argued that the order of the Rent Controller isliable to be set aside, on this basis alone. Mr. Rohatgi has advanced no arguments in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in this case of EMC Indialimited (supra) ( 5 ) THE position that emerges is that the order of the Controller, whichwas based solely on the basis of judgment of this Court, is not sustainable inview of the decision of the Supreme Court. And to that extent the order,dismissing the eviction petition, as not maintainable is liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) MS. Patney further argued that in another judgment reported as43 (1991) Delhi Law Times 477 S. Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union of Indiaand another, it has been further held by the Supreme Court that theprovisions of Sections 14-B to 14-D of the Act stand by themselves and aspecial category of landlords has been carved out to seek eviction of thetenant and that the parameters are narrowed down and restricted to therequirement as laid down in these respective Sections. She has sought to argueon the basis of this judgment that the strict requirement of Section 14 (1) (e) ofthe Act, such as plea of bona fide requirement or any other connected pleaarc not available to the tenant in this case of eviction petition having been filedunder Sections 14-D of the Act. ( 7 ) MR. Rohatgi has, however, also placed reliance on a portion of thejudgment in the Surjit Singh Kalra s case (supra), to say that the requirementof proof of bona fide would still be there. ( 7 ) MR. Rohatgi has, however, also placed reliance on a portion of thejudgment in the Surjit Singh Kalra s case (supra), to say that the requirementof proof of bona fide would still be there. He, however, submitted that inview of the fact that Rent Controller has not adverted on merits, to the application for leave to defend and dismissed the eviction petition only on theground of maintainability, it is in the fitness of things that the matter is remittedto the Rent Controller for hearing of the application for leave to defend filedby the tenant and after hearing the parties to take a proper decision becausethe tenant has taken certain other pleas on point of law, as also factual pleas. ( 8 ) I have gone through the application for leave to defend, which ison original record summoned by this Court. I find that there are pleas taken bythe tenant, in addition to the pleas of maintainability. The Rent Controllerdid not advert to those pleas on merits because of the preliminary objectionwhich he upheld. ( 9 ) IT is therefore considered to be a fit case that after setting aside theorder of dismissal and restoring eviction petition to the file of the Rent Controller, it is directed that the application for leave to defend moved under Section 25-B (5) of the Act is beared on merits and decided in the light of thesubmissions made and decisions cited before the Controller. ( 10 ) AT this stage, it is pointed out by Ms. Patney that the evictionpetition was filed in September, 1989 and because of dismissal on question oflaw, all this time has been spent with the eviction petition making no headway. ( 11 ) I find that the reply of the petitioner to the application undersection 25-B (5) is already there. If any rejoinder is required to be filed, therespondent can be given time bound directions to file the same, and thereafterit is further considered a fit case to fix the date of hearing, and a strict timeframe for disposal of this application. ( 12 ) I accordingly while allowing the revision and setting aside the orderdated 2 7/11/1990, whereby the eviction petition was dismissed, orderthat the eviction petition be restorted to the file of the Controller. ( 12 ) I accordingly while allowing the revision and setting aside the orderdated 2 7/11/1990, whereby the eviction petition was dismissed, orderthat the eviction petition be restorted to the file of the Controller. It isdirected that the case records along with copy of this order be sent to the Rentcontroller, without any loss of time and the file be put up before the Rent Controller on 20/08/1991. Both the parties are present with their Counsel. It is directed that they shall appear before the Rent Controller on the date nowbeing fixed and by that time, the rejoinder, if any, be filed before the Rent Controller. It is further directed that the Rent Controller shall pass appropriateorder after hearing both the parties, and ensure that the application for leave todefend is heard and disposed of within two months of the file being put upbefore him. ( 13 ) WITH these directions, the revision petition stands disposed of No order as to costs.