JUDGMENT The applicant, who is a tenant in a non-residential accommodation, challenges by this revision under section 23-E of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 the impugned order dated 7.10.1993 whereby the Rent Controlling Authority has refused leave to defend the eviction suit filed by the applicant-landlady. An application for leave to defend was filed within 15 days of the service of summons as required by laws, although an affidavit in support of the same was filed a little late. In the application, the tenant urged two grounds of defence, particularly that one of the son of landlady is carrying on cloth business in which his son Rajesh is also engaged with his elder-brother. The other defence raised was that the son Rajesh, for whom the accommodation was sought, is running a kirana business in the name and style of Ganesh provisions stores. It was also urged as an additional ground that the landlady wanted to enhance the rent and the tenant having declined, the suit for eviction was brought. The learned Rent Controlling Authority by the impugned order refused leave to defend to the tenant. The reason given in his order is that the tenant has nowhere stated that Rajesh has an alternative suitable accommodation for carrying on business. It was also stated in the order that Ganesh Provision stores was being looked after by Mukesh Kumar, other son of the landlady. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant relied on Omprakash Saluja v. Smt. Sarawati Devi (AIR 1987 SC 1599) in support of his contention that at the stage of considering grant of leave to defend, the Rent Controlling Authority is required to satisfy that the triable plea of defence has been raised and at this stage, he is not required to consider the merit of the defence. The learned counsel appearing for the landlady made some attempt to support the order and stated that the reasons given by the Rent Controlling Authority disentitles the tenant from grant of leave. It is also stated that in the absence of affidavit, the application for leave should have been rejected. In my opinion, since leave was sought within 15 days on a triable issue of bone fide need, the tenant ought to have been granted an opportunity to defend himself. It is also stated that in the absence of affidavit, the application for leave should have been rejected. In my opinion, since leave was sought within 15 days on a triable issue of bone fide need, the tenant ought to have been granted an opportunity to defend himself. Leave was sought within time and the said affidavit in support of the leave was filed little late does not deprive the right of the tenant to obtain leave. The learned counsel for the tenant is right in submitting that it was open to the tenant to oppose eviction on the ground that there was no bona fide need for the accommodation of the son of the landlady who was already engaged in the other two businesses. It will be useful to reproduced the observations made by the Supreme Court on the point in question in the case of Omprakash Saluja (supra) : "We wish to impress upon the Rent Control dealing with the matters under Delhi Rent Control Act wherein leave to defend is sought to be more meticulous while deciding at the initial stage, whether leave to defend should be granted or refused, to keep in view some principles laid down by this Court as early as 1988 and since then much water has been flown under Yamuna Bridges. At any rate that is not the stage of adjudication of rival contentions on affidavit or unproved documents. The only test is whether affidavit in support of application seeking leave to defend discloses facts which need investigation by evidence and trial." This Court has followed the above decision in C.R. No. 119/85 (Indore Bench) decided on 27.6.86, Lalaram v. Shivdayal. In my opinion, the Rent Controlling Authority was, therefore, clearly in error in refusing the tenant leave to defend when he had raised a plea which required investigation and trial. This revision, therefore, succeed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 7.10.93 of the Rent Controlling Authority is set aside. The application filed by the tenant under section 23-C (Annexure A-2) dated 27.7.93 for leave to defend is allowed. The applicant be permitted to file his written statement. The Rent Controlling Authority shall frame issue and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. AIR 1982 SC 1599 followed.