V. B. Bansal ( 1 ) SHRI Thakur Dass has filed this revision petitionagainst the order dated 2/09/1992 of Shri M. K. Gupta, Additionalrent Controller, Delhi, thereby dismissing the application of the petitionerfor leave to defend and thus, passing an eviction order in favour of Smt. Parbati Devi, under Section 14 (l) (e) read with Sec. 25-B of the Delhi Rentcontrol Act (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as "the Act") from the premises, shownin the site plan Ex. A-1, with a further direction that the order shall not be executable for a period of six months. ( 2 ) SMT. Parbati Devi (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as "the Owner") filed a petition for eviction against Thakur Dass (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as "the Tenant") under Section 14 (l) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Act, inter alia pleading that she was the owner of House No. 265. Block-U, Street No. 4, Mangol Puri, Delhi, which was let out to the tenant in 1984 for residence on a monthly rent of Rs. 125. 00per month excluding water and electricity. It was also claimed that the said house was allotted to the petitioner by the DDA for residential purposes under the Special Housing Scheme on Hire Purchase basis, in accordance with the terms and conditions, stipulated in the DDA (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968 and being the only allottee, who has been regularly paying installments to (lie DDA. It has also been claimed that she has been residing on the first floor of tenanted portion, comprising of one small room along with temporary tin-shed kitchen and common verandah in premises No. 351, Dhawan Street, Subzi Mandi, Delhi along with her daughter s sons Narain Dass (aged 29 years) and Bhagwan Dass (aged 26 years) It has also been claimed that Narain Dass is marriage wife Smt. Raj Kumari and they have two children, who are also residing with her as members of the family. Further averments made in the petition have been that the premises in question are residential which are required for residence and she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi. Further averments made in the petition have been that the premises in question are residential which are required for residence and she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi. ( 3 ) AFTER the receipt of the notice of this eviction petition, an applicationalong with an affidavit was filed by the tenant that the tenanted premiseswere let out to him for residential-cum-commercial purposes and he has beenusing the same, both for residence and for the purposes of manufacturingcard-board boxes and supplying the same to the shopkeepers. Further avermentsmade in the affidavit have been that the owner has with her anotherhouse bearing Municipal No. 951, Dhawan Street, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, whichshe has been using for her residence for the last 30 years and that there wasno dependent on the petitioner who may require additional accommodation. It was also claimed that she was neither the owner nor the land-lord andthus, prayer was made for leave to defend the proceedings as several triableissues have been raised. a reply-affidavit was filed by Smt. Parbati Devi, controverting theaverments made by the tenant. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Rent Controller passed the impugned judgment, thereby directing the eviction of the tenant/petitioner. ( 5 ) I have heard Shri P. K. Nayyar, learned Counsel for the petitionerand Shri N. N. Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the respondent and have alsocarefully gone through the record. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had raised many triable issues, which could be decided by the learned Additional Rent Controller only, after giving opportunity to the parties for leading evidence, and that grave injustice has been done to the petitioner by refusing to give permission to defend. He has also submitted that the grounds pleaded by the petitioner have clearly indicated that neither the respondent is the owner or the land-lord and she was not in need of the premises for her own residence or for the residence of the members of her family. It has further been submitted that the premises were let out to the petitioner for rasidence-cum-commercial purpose and thus, no case was made out for straight away passing an order of eviction. A prayer has, therefore, been that the order may be set aside and the petitioner may be given an opportunity to defend the petition for eviction. It has further been submitted that the premises were let out to the petitioner for rasidence-cum-commercial purpose and thus, no case was made out for straight away passing an order of eviction. A prayer has, therefore, been that the order may be set aside and the petitioner may be given an opportunity to defend the petition for eviction. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, submitted that no triable issues have baen raised by the petitioner in the application for leave to defend. It has prima facie been proved that the respondentis the owner and land-lord of the premises, which were let out to the petitioner, only for residence and she is in bona fide requirement of the same forher residence and the residence other family members. A prayer has, therefore, been made that the petition may be dismissed. ( 8 ) BEFORE going into the matter, it would, at this stage, be appropriateto quote Section 14 (l) (e) of the Act, which reads as under :-"section 14 (l) (e):that the premises let out for residential purposes are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or forany member of his family dependent on him, if be is the ownerthereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are heldand that the landlord or such person has no other reasonablysuitable residential accommodation;"a perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that in orderto succeed in obtaining an order of eviction, a land-lord has to plead andprove the following ingredients : (1) that he is the owner/land-lord of the premises : (2) that the premises were let for residential purposes ; (3) that he required the premises for himself or for any memberof his family, dependent upon him; and (4) that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. ( 9 ) THE pica of the rerpondent had been that she was allotted these premises by the DDA under the DDA (Management and Disposal ofhousing Estates) Regulations, 1968 being the only allottee and has been paying installments regularly to the DDA. She has also claimed to have given these premises to the petitioner on rent at the rate of Rs. 125. 00 per month. These facts are not controverted by the petitioner in the affidavit, filed by him, for claiming leave to defend the proceedings. She has also claimed to have given these premises to the petitioner on rent at the rate of Rs. 125. 00 per month. These facts are not controverted by the petitioner in the affidavit, filed by him, for claiming leave to defend the proceedings. ( 10 ) SUBMISSION of learned Counsel for the petitioner has been that the respondent being not the owner can not claim the benefit of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act as she does not fulfil the requirements of being the owner,though, she may be the land-lord. I do not agree with this submission. Asalready REFERRED TO to, the premises were let out to the petitioner by the respondent, who has claimed herself to be an allottee from the DDA. Even if,the respondent has not paid all the installments to the DDA, does not giveany right to the tenant to take up the defence of denying the ownership so asto avoid the order of eviction. The respondent, in fact, has a good titleagainst every body in the world excepting the DDA. The petitioner havingbeen inducted by the respondent, she no doubt has the right to dispossess thepetitioner/tenant and occupy the premises herself. She, in these circumstances, is certainly covered by the term "owner" appearing in Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. I find support for this view from the case Kanwal Kishorechopra, Petitioner v. O. P. Dwivedi and Another, Respondents, Reported asair 1978 Delhi 53. ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that theowner/respondent had no cause of action inasmuch as it has not been pleadedby her in the petition for eviction that she does not have reasonably suitableresidential accommodation and on this account, the petition ought to havebeen rejected. Reliance has been placed on case Dr. (Mrs) N. D. Khanna,petitioner v. M/s. Hindustan Industrial Corporation, New Delhi, Respondent, (Reported as AIR 1981 Delhi 305 ). Reliance has been placed on case Dr. (Mrs) N. D. Khanna,petitioner v. M/s. Hindustan Industrial Corporation, New Delhi, Respondent, (Reported as AIR 1981 Delhi 305 ). It has been held in this case that forobtaining an order of eviction under Sec. 14 (l) (e), a land-lord has to pleadand prove the following ingredients: (1) that he is the owner land-lord of thesuit premises; (2) that the premises were let for residential purposes; (3) thathe requires the premises for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him; (4) that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation and if there is any omission in the eviction application of mentioning any of the aforesaid ingredients, the petition is liable to be rejected. There can possibly, be no dispute with regard to the legal proposition. Thequestion, however, for consideration is as to whether there is any default onthe part of the respondent/land-lord in pleading the facts. A reading of thecontents of the whole petition for eviction makes it abundantly clear thatsmt. Parbati Devi has claimed that she is the owner and the respondent hasbeen in possession of the same as a tenant on payment of Rs. 125. 00 per monthwhich were let out to him for residence. It has. also been pleaded by herthat she was residing in a tenanted premises and she needed the premises forher own residence and the residence of her family members, having noother reasonable suitable accommodation in Delhi. There is no doubt thatwhile staling that she had no other reasonable suitable accommodation indelhi, it has not been mentioned that she did not have reasonably suitableresidential accommodation. However, the petition has to be read as a wholeand while doing so, it is clear that all the facts have been pleaded by theowner and no case has been made out for the rejection of the petition. ( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thepremises were let out to the petitioner for residential-cum-commercial purposes and that the petitioner has been using the same for his business purposeof manufacturing cardboard boxes and supplying the same to his customersfrom the premises in dispute. ( 12 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thepremises were let out to the petitioner for residential-cum-commercial purposes and that the petitioner has been using the same for his business purposeof manufacturing cardboard boxes and supplying the same to his customersfrom the premises in dispute. He has further submitted that the personsclaimed by the respondent, to be her family members, are not the familymembers and she did not require the premises for her own use or for the useof her family members, it has also been submitted that the sons of thedaughter of the respondent, out of which, one is married and has wife andchildren, cannot be the family members of the respondent and in fact, theirparents are residing in Delhi in their own house. He has, thus, submittedthat triable issues have been raised by the petitioner with regard to the purpose for which the premises was let out and whether the respondent hasany need of the premises for her own residence and the residence of herfamily members. It has, thus, been submitted that the learned Trial Courthas erred in declining to give permission to contest the eviction petition. ( 13 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent is an old lady and that one son along with his wife and children andanother son of her daughter have been residing with the respondent, who assuch, are her family members and it cannot be said that she is not in need ofthe premises. It has also been submitted that there is no material on recordto indicate that the premises were let out to the tenant for residential-cum-conamercial purpose or that he has been carrying on the business of manufacturing cardboard Boxes. It has, thus been submitted that the leave hascorrectly been declined. ( 14 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to these submissions. Itis not disputed that no Rent Note was ever executed and the respondent hadnever issued Rent Receipts to the petitioner in respect of the premises inquestion. The most important question for consideration, at this stage, isabout the ambit and scope for granting leave to contest to the tenant or torefuse the same. Itis not disputed that no Rent Note was ever executed and the respondent hadnever issued Rent Receipts to the petitioner in respect of the premises inquestion. The most important question for consideration, at this stage, isabout the ambit and scope for granting leave to contest to the tenant or torefuse the same. The basis authority on the point is a judgment of thesupreme Court in case Precesion Steel and Engineering Works and Another,appellants /tenants v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, Respondent /land-lord (Reported as 1982 (2) All India Rent Control Journal Supreme Court 643 ). It has been held in this case that the Controller cannot ask the parties toproduce the documents or other evidence and where it has been produced,the Controller cannot look into them. However, the affidavit must give thefacts in support of the contentions raised and bare averments not supportedby facts, would not be sufficient. It has also been held that where the tenantpleads that the persons REFERRED TO to by the owner are not the members, itmust be shown specifically as to how they are not the members. In the casewingcomm. R. P. Jaiswal v. Hans Raj, (Reported as 1979 RLR 17 ) it hasbeen held that where the tenant pleads that the persons claimed by the landlord to be the family members were not so, then important and triable issueis raised and permission to contest should be given to the tenant. In theinstant case. it has specifically been pleaded by the petitioner that thepremises were let out for residence-cum-commercial purposes and that thedaughters sons and their wife and children are not the family members ofowner. Can it be said that this plea of the tenant is not a bona fide plea andanswer is certainly in the negative. The questions raised by the tenant arespecific, positive and bonafide inasmuch as it has been pleaded that the persons claimed by her to be the family members are not the family membersand that she is the owner of another house mentioned in the affidavit. keeping in view these averments. I am clearly of the view that a case wasmade out by the petitioner for leave to defend. The learned Trial Court hascommitted an error in refusing to grant per mission on account of which, thepetitioner has suffered. The petition, thus, deserves to be allowed. keeping in view these averments. I am clearly of the view that a case wasmade out by the petitioner for leave to defend. The learned Trial Court hascommitted an error in refusing to grant per mission on account of which, thepetitioner has suffered. The petition, thus, deserves to be allowed. ( 15 ) IN view of my foregoing discussion, the revision petition is accepted , the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted permissionto defend the petition for eviction. The learned Additional Rent Controller,delhi would take steps for the expeditious disposal of the petition. Partiesto bear their own costs. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 2 7/10/1993.