V. B. BANSAL ( 1 ) M/s. Andrew Yule and Co. Ltd. , petitioner has filed this revision petition under Sections 25 (B) (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as "the Act"), thereby challenging the order dated 25. 11. 1992 of Shri S. M. Chopra, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi. The learned Addl. Rent Controller has declined to give leave to the petitioner to defend the application for his ejectment under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Act and passing of order of eviction in favour of the land-lord/respondent in respect of the premises in dispute situated at 1-1800, C. R. Park, New Delhi. It was also directed that the land-lord shall not be entitled to vacant possession for a period of six months. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts leadtag to the filing of this revision petition are the Wg. Cdr. . S. B. Ghosh (Retd.) filed an application for eviction against the respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) and 25 (b) of the Act. It was inter-alia pleaded that he was the owner of the premises, which were let out to the respondent for residential purposes vide lease deed dated 9. 3. 1980. It was also pleaded that the premises were let out to the respondents for the residence of Shri K. Banerjee, its Branch Manager, who has since left the premises, which are now required with bonafide intentions by him for his own residence and the residence of his family members, dependent on him. It was also pleaded that it was the only residential house owned by him and that he retired as Wing Commander in 1980 at the age of 48 years and thereafter took a job with the National Textiles Corporation at Calcutta where from he retired in August, 1989. It was also claimed that he was getting pension and in anticipation of leaving the job he had been requesting the respondent to deliver possession back and he wants to live in his own house, which was construed by him after migration from Pakistan. It was also claimed that he would take up consultancy assignments in Delhi as he has adequate qualification and experience in that field. ( 3 ) AN application under Section 25b (4) of the Act along with affidavit of V. K. Bogra, General Manager (Northern Region) of the tenant/petitioner was filed. It was also claimed that he would take up consultancy assignments in Delhi as he has adequate qualification and experience in that field. ( 3 ) AN application under Section 25b (4) of the Act along with affidavit of V. K. Bogra, General Manager (Northern Region) of the tenant/petitioner was filed. It was inter-alia pleaded that the owner was actuated by malafide motive in filing the petition for eviction on account of its refusal to increase the rent. It was also claimed that the rent has already been increased to a sum of Rs. 2,365. 00 per month and in the past, he has increased the rent, but now, it was not possible to agree to this demand and thus, the present eviction petition. It was also claimed that the owner did not require the petition for his use and occupation since the house 13/4, Central Park, Jadavpur, Calcutta where he was staying with his family members, stood in the name of his wife. It has also been claimed that after his retirement from the National Textiles Corporation on 31. 8. 1989, owner has been doing consultancy work at Calcutta and there was no reason for him to suddenly change his residence to Delhi. A prayer has, thus, been made that he may be permitted to contest the eviction proceedings since he has bonafide defence to the suit, instituted by the owner. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing counsel for the parties, the impugned order was passed. ( 5 ) I have heard Shri P. K. Jaitley, learnedcounsel for the petitioner and Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learnred counsel for the respondent ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Addl. Rent Controller has completely misconstrued and misunderstood the scope and ambit of subsections (4) (5) of Section 25 (B) of the Act. He ought to have posed to himself the only question "does the affidavit filed by the petitioner disclose, not prove, facts as would. disentitle the land-lord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession on the grounds specified in Clause (e ). He has further submitted that the owner has been residing at Calcutta in the house, owned by his wife, where he is doing the work of consultancy. disentitle the land-lord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession on the grounds specified in Clause (e ). He has further submitted that the owner has been residing at Calcutta in the house, owned by his wife, where he is doing the work of consultancy. He has further submitted that in the past, the petitioner/tenant has been agreeing to the demand of the owner for the increase in the rent and now, on account of its refusal to increase the rent, the present- petition has been filed. He has further submitted that it has now, been known by the petitioner/tenant that wife of the owner is a doctor, having roaring practice and it is clear that there is no intention on the part of the land-lord to shift to Delhi. He has thus, submitted that a case has been made out by the petitioner/tenant for permission to defend the eviction proceedings and the Addl. Rent Controller has committed grave error in refusing the prayer and passing the impugned order. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent-has, on the other hand, submitted that no plausible defence has been made out by the tenant in the affidavit and it is apparent that Wg. Cdr. S. B. Ghosh, owner does not have any other house in Delhi or atany other place and that he is residing at Calcutta in the house, owned by his wife s brother. He has further submitted that he is getting meagre pension and it has become very difficult for him to manage his expenses at Calcutta and mat he has a desire to shift to Delhi and reside in his own house in his old age and to start the work of consultancy. He has also submitted that no plausible defence has been made out and the order has rightly been passed by the Addl. Rent Controller. A prayer has, therefore, been made that the present revision petition may be dismissed. He has also submitted that no plausible defence has been made out and the order has rightly been passed by the Addl. Rent Controller. A prayer has, therefore, been made that the present revision petition may be dismissed. ( 8 ) A perusal of sub-Section (4) and sub-Section (5) of Section 25 B of the Act makes it abundantly clear that a tenant has to move an application for leave to defend the proceedings by way of filing an affidavit giving the grounds on which, he sought the permission to contest the proceedings and this application would be allowed if the tenant discloses such facts, as would disentitle the land-lord from obtaining an order for the recovery of me possession of the premises on the grounds specified in Clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-Section 1 of Section 14 of the Act The basic authority on the point is the case Precision Steel and Engineering Works versus Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal reported in A. I. R 1982s. C. 1518. It has been observed that the moment an affidavit is filed by a tenant seeking permission to defend the proceedings for eviction, it would be open for the land-lord to contest the application and for that purpose he can file an affidavit in reply. It has, however, been observed that the Controller has to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant and the reply, if any, and that on considering these two documents, the Controller has to pose himself the only question "does the affidavit filed by the petitioner disclose, not prove, facts as would disentitle the land-lord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession on the ground specified in Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14 (1)?". It is also held that the Controller is not to record a finding on disputed questions of facts or his preference of one set of affidavits against the other set of affidavits, and it is not the jurisdiction conferred on the Controller by sub-Section (5 ). It is also held that the Controller is not to record a finding on disputed questions of facts or his preference of one set of affidavits against the other set of affidavits, and it is not the jurisdiction conferred on the Controller by sub-Section (5 ). It is also held that the jurisdiction to grant leave to contest or refuse the same is to be exercised on the basis of the affidavit filed by the tenant and that alone, at that stage, is the relevant document and one must confine to the averments in the affidavit" ( 9 ) IN case Charan Das versus Brahma Nand reported in 1982 RLR S. C. 243, it has been held that leave to defend may be refused if defence is wholly frivolous. It has also been observed that leave to defend is not to be granted on mere asking but at the same time, it should not be refused, though, triable issues are raised and the controversy can be properly adjudicated after ascertaining the facts through cross-examination of the witnesses. It is also held that a consideration of the affidavit filed by the tenant and reply thereto, it must be found that triable issues have been raised and it is not to be considered at that stage as to whether finally, the tenant would succeed or not. ( 10 ) IN case Indershan Sharma-Petitioner versus Smt. Premarastogi-Respondent reported in 34 (1988) DL T 220 it has been held that the application for leave to defend has to be decided on the basis of the affidavit filed by the tenant and if tenant disclosed triable issue, no proof is needed at that stage. ( 11 ) IN case Lila Wati Dev -Petitioner versus Mohinder Kumar Juneja - Respondent reported in 23 (1983) DL T 335 it has been held that the Controller is not to record a finding on dispute question of facts or of his preference of one set of affidavits against the other. This jurisdiction is not conferred on the Controller by sub-Section 5 and that he has to come to a conclusion as to whether the affidavit of the tenant disclosed a reasonable defence so as to disentitle the land-lord in claiming the possession. If he succeeds in proving so, the permission has to be granted. This jurisdiction is not conferred on the Controller by sub-Section 5 and that he has to come to a conclusion as to whether the affidavit of the tenant disclosed a reasonable defence so as to disentitle the land-lord in claiming the possession. If he succeeds in proving so, the permission has to be granted. ( 12 ) I would, now, examine the impugned order with reference to the pleas raised by the tenant/petitioner for permission to defend the eviction proceedings to find out if the Addl. Rent Controller was justified in declining the prayer for permission to defend the proceedings. In the instant case, the plea of the tenant had been that there has been increase in the rent a number of times and since the start of the tenancy. It is not disputed that initially the rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 1500. 00 per month and at present the rate of rent is Rs. 2365. 00 per month. It is also the case of the tenant that after retirement from the Air Force, the land-lord was re-employed at Calcutta uptil 1989 and thereafter, he has been doing the work of consultancy. It is not disputed that wife of the respondent/land-lord is a doctor and is doing practice as a Medical Practitioner. It is;also the admitted case of the parties that the landlord has throughout been residing outside Delhi and had no occasion to reside in his own house. According to the petitioner, the land-lord/owner of the house in question is residing at Calcutta in a house owned by his wife which fact is denied by the owner without there being any document to show that she is not the owner or that the house belongs to the brother of his wife. Can it be now said that the pleas raised by the tenant do not disclose facts as would disentitle the land-lord from obtaining an order for the recovery of the premises in dispute? I am of the considered view that it is a fit case where leave to defend ought to have been given to the tenant/ petitioner. The impugned order, thus, can not be sustained. ( 13 ) IN view of my aforegoing discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the petitioner/tenant is given leave to defend the case. Parties to bear their own costs. The impugned order, thus, can not be sustained. ( 13 ) IN view of my aforegoing discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the petitioner/tenant is given leave to defend the case. Parties to bear their own costs. Learned Trial Court is, however, directed to expeditiously dispose of the case preferably within six months. ( 14 ) PARTIES to appear before the Trial Court on 10th August, 1993.