P. K. Bahri ( 1 ) THIS is a petition challenging the order ofeviction passed by the Additional Controller dated 19/08/1992. I maymention that the leave to defend application of the petitioner was declinedand the eviction order was passed on the ground of eviction covered byclause (e) of proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the Delhi Rentcontrol Act. ( 2 ) ONE of the pleas raised in the leave to defend application wasthat respondent is not the owner of the flat in question. The respondenthad produced alongwith his affidavit a photocopy of the memorandum ofpartition allegedly supplied to him which showed that the flat in questionhad been allotted in ownership of R. K. Mittal whereas the respondent hadfiled original memorandum of partition alongwith his petition seekingeviction showing that the flat in question, in fact, had been allotted to himin partition amongst four brothers. ( 3 ) ORIGINALLY, the property belonged to H. C. Mittal who died in1988, The respondent is also relying on some note of H. C. Mittal madein 1971 to show that H. C. Mittal wanted that the flat in question should,after his death, go to the share of the respondent. ( 4 ) THE short question which arises for decision is whether the plearaised by the petitioner in leave to defend application raised a triable issueor not or whether the said plea was a frivolous one which could not havebeen taken note of ? ( 5 ) I am afraid the Additional Controller went wrong in examiningthe documents produced by the parties and giving a finding that thedocument produced by the petitioner is a forged one. It was a very seriousfinding to be given against any party which may even open the party tocriminal prosecution. At any rate, once a plea has been raised in the leaveto defend application supported by an affidavit and a photocopy ofmemorandum of partition that in fact the flat in question had come to theshare of R. K. Mittal and another flat on the first floor had been given tothe share of the respondent, then such a plea required to be looked into andleave to defend application ought to have been allowed by the Additionalcontroller and he should have decided the matter on evidence. ( 6 ) I allow the civil revision and set aside the impugned order andgrant the leave to defend to the petitioner but I direct the Additionalcontroller to decide this case positively within six months and if ultimatelyany finding on merits is given that the document produced by eitherparty is forged, it would be a very fit case in the interest of justice forfiling a criminal complaint against such a party forging such a document. ( 7 ) PARTIES are directed to appear before the Additional Controllerfor further proceedings on 15/03/1992. Office to see that the file ofthe Trial Court reaches the Trial Court before that date.