JUDGMENT Miss Kamlesh Sharma, J.—This Revision Petition under section 16 of the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter called the Act) is directed against the order dated 6-4-1994 passed by the Rent Controller (III), Shimla, District Shimla, whereby leave to contest has been granted to the respondents tenants to contest the petition for eviction filed by the petitioner landlord under section 15 of the Act in his capacity as specified landlord 2. The facts in brief are that in the eviction petition filed by the petitioner as specified landlord he has alleged that at the time of filing the eviction petition he was posted as Field Officer (Technical) in Special Bureau, Government of India, 20-Craigdhu Hill, Shimla, from which post he was to retire on 30-4-1994. He was occupying Type III accommodation at Longwood Shimla which premises were to be vacated by him after his retirement. The further case of the petitioner-landlord is that he has the intention to settle in Shimla and except the premises in dispute which are in occupation of the respondents-tenants, he has no other premises suitable to his requirement and that of the members of his family Admittedly, the petitioner landlord has become owner of the premises in dispute by way of a gift deed dated 3-10-1991 executed in his favour by its previous owner Smt. Satya Devi Sood. The gift deed is duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar Shimla and on the basis of it, mutation has also been attested in favour of the petitioner-landlord. 3. On receipt of summons from the Rent Controller (III), Shimla, the respondents-tenants entered their appearance and sought leave to contest the petition on the basis of facts disclosed in the affidavits filed by two of them, namely, Rakesh Bhaskar and Dr. Ashwani Bhaskar. In fact both these affidavits are copy of each other except that the name of the deponent is different. The averments made in these affidavits are that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the premises in dispute were let out to late Sh. Des Raj Gussain, father of respondents- tenants in the year 1948 by Smt. Satya Devi Sood. The averments made in these affidavits are that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the premises in dispute were let out to late Sh. Des Raj Gussain, father of respondents- tenants in the year 1948 by Smt. Satya Devi Sood. It is specifically denied that ownership of the premises in dispute has been transferred to the petitioner-landlord by Smt. Satya Devi Sood by way of gift deed dated 3-10-1991 According to the respondents tenants, the execution of the gift deed is actuated with malice in order to create a ground to evict them by Smt Satya Devi in collusion with the petitioner landlord because she, being in occupation of spacious accommodation in the building in which the premises in dispute are situated and having sold various residential sets, after getting them vacated, is not entitle to get the premises in dispute vacated for her personal use and no other ground of eviction is available to her The respondents tenants have given the particulars of the residential sets in the same building which were sold by Smt, Satya Devi after getting them vacated in Para 6 of their affidavits On the basis of these allegations the case of (he respondents-tenants is that the gift deed is nothing but a camouflage to create a ground of eviction, as such, it is fraudulent and a sham transaction which cannot confer any title on the petitioner landlord The certificate produced by the petitioner-landlord in respect of the date of his retirement has also been challenged by the respondents-tenants on the ground that it has not been issued by the competent authority. 4. Appreciating the facts and other material placed before him by the parties, the Rent Controller (111), Shimla, has come to the conclusion from the facts disclosed in the affidavits that triable issues arise in the case which cannot be determined by summary procedure prescribed in the Act, therefore, he has granted permission to the respondents-tenants to contest the eviction petition, 5. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Before this Court deals with the submissions made by Sh. A. K. Goel, learned Counsel for the petitioner-landlord, it would refer to the relevant provisions of section 16 of the Act. These are:— "16. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Before this Court deals with the submissions made by Sh. A. K. Goel, learned Counsel for the petitioner-landlord, it would refer to the relevant provisions of section 16 of the Act. These are:— "16. Special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement under section 14 (3) (a) (iii) and section 15 (1) every application by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises under sub-clause (iii) of Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 14 or section 15 shall be dealt within accordance with the procedure specified in this section. x x x x x x x x (4) The tenant on whom the summons are duly served (whether in the ordinary way or by registered post) in the form specified in Schedule II shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he filed an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided ; and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord or by the specified landlord, or as the case may be, the widow, widower, child, grand-child or widowed daughter-in-law of such specified landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to as order for eviction on the ground aforesaid. (5) The Controller shall give to the tenant leave to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would disentitle the landlord or the specified landlord, or as the case may be, the widow, widower, child grand child or widowed daughter-in-law of such specified landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on the ground specified in sub-clause (iii) of Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 14 or in section 15. 6. These provisions are para materia to sections 25-B (1), 25-B (4) and 25-B (5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 which fell for consideration of the Supreme Court of India in Precision Steel and Engineering Works and another v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal9 AIR 1982 SC 1518. 6. These provisions are para materia to sections 25-B (1), 25-B (4) and 25-B (5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 which fell for consideration of the Supreme Court of India in Precision Steel and Engineering Works and another v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal9 AIR 1982 SC 1518. Interpreting these provisions, the majority view of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court is that sub-section (5) of section 2vB of the Delhi Rent Control Act (which is para materia to sub-section (5) of section \6 of the Act) confers a statutory duty to give leave to the tenant to contest the eviction petition if the affidavit filed by him discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession of the premises on the ground of bona fide requirement for his personal use or the use of the members of his family under section 14 (I) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (para materia to section 14 (3) (a) (iii) of the Act) The learned Judges compared (he procedure prescribed under section 14 with that under section 25 of the Delhi Act (para materia to sections 14 and 16 of the Act) and found that the procedure prescribed under section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (para materia to section 16 of the Act) is more harsh and weighted against the tenant. It is further observed (in para 10) that :- "When a landlord approaches Controller under section 14 (1) proviso (e), is the Court to presume every averment in the petition as unchallengeable and truthful ? The consequence of refusal to grant leave must share in the face of the Controller that the landlord gets an order of eviction without batting the eye-lid. This consequence itself is sufficient liberally approach the prayer for leave to contest the petition While examining the question whether leave to defend ought or ought not to be granted the limited jurisdiction which the Controller enjoys is prescribed within the well defined limits and he cannot get into a sort of a trial by affidavits preferring one set to the other and thus concluding the trial itself. Short circuiting the proceedings need not masquerate as a strict compliance with sub-section 5 of section 25-B. The provision is cast in a mandatory form. Short circuiting the proceedings need not masquerate as a strict compliance with sub-section 5 of section 25-B. The provision is cast in a mandatory form. Statutory duty is cast on the Controller to give leave as the legislature uses the expression the Controller shall give" to the tenant leave to contest if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would disentitle the landlord for an order for recovery of possession. The Controller has to ^ok at the affidavit of the tenant seeking leave to contest. Browsing through the affidavit if there emerges averments of facts which on a trial, if believed, would non suit the landlord, leave ought to be granted Let it be made clear that the statute is not cast in a negative form by enacting that the Controller shall refuse to give to the tenant leave to contest the application unless the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would dis-entitle the landlord from obtaining an order etc. That is not the mould in which the section is cast. The provision indicates a positive apprach and not a negative inhibition.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court further observed that under sub-section (5) of section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act the jurisdiction of the Controller is to confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant disclosing such facts as would prima facie, not on contest dis entitle the landlord from obtaining an order of recovery of possession it- is held that at that stage the affidavit of the tenant is the only relevant document and " It: is immaterial that facts alleged and disclosed are con troverted by the landlord because the stage of proof is yet to come It is distinctly possible that a tenant may fail to make food the defence raised by him. Plausibility of the defence raised and proof of the same are materially different from each other and one cannot bring in the concept of proof at the stage when plausibility has to be shown..." Hence the con elusion of the learned Judges was that". The Scheme of section 25-B does not introduce a trial for arriving at the truth at the stage- of proceeding contemplated by sub-section (4) of section 25-B". 8. The Scheme of section 25-B does not introduce a trial for arriving at the truth at the stage- of proceeding contemplated by sub-section (4) of section 25-B". 8. Comparing the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act with the analogous provision under Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code, the learned Judges discussed earlier decisions including decisions in Busching Schmitz (P) Ltd. v. P. T Menshani AIR 1977 SC 1569 and B. N Mutto v. T. K, Nandi, AIR 1979 SC 460 wd held that jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under sub-section (5) of section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act is not very very limited "as held in Full Bench Judgment of Delhi High Court in Mohan Lal v. Tirath Ram ATR 1982 Delhi 405, despite the difference that under Rule 5 of Order 37 C. P. C, it is necessary to record whether the defence is substantial or frivolous or vexatious and under sub section (5) of section 25 of Delhi Rent Control Act, the Rent Controller is to grant leave on mere disclosure of facts which if proved in a regular trial will disentitle the landlord to obtain relief of possession. According to the learned Judges the responsibility of the Controller at the time of deciding the application for leave to contest the petition considerably increases because he is the final arbiter of facts at that stage as no appeal lies against the order refusing leave and only Revision can be filed in the High Court which jurisdiction is admittedly narrow Therefore, "..wisdom, sagacity and the consequence of refusal to grant leave coupled with limited scope of enquiry being confined to facts disclosed in affidavit of the tenant should guide the approach of the Controller". The learned Judges concluded :— "What then follows. The Controller has to confine himself indisputably to the condition prescribed for exercise of jurisdiction in sub-section (5) of section 25-B. In other words he must confine himself to the affidavit filed by the tenant If the affidavit discloses such facts no proof is needed at the stage, which would disentitle the plaintiff from seeking possession, the mere disclosure of such facts must be held sufficient to grant leave because the statute says on disclosure of such facts the Controller shall grant leave. It is difficult to be exhaustive as to what such facts could be but ordinarily when an action is brought under section 14 (t) proviso (e) of the Act whereby the landlord seeks to recover possession on the ground of bona fide personal requirement if the tenant alleges such facts as that the landlord has other accommodation in his possession ; that the landlord has in his possession accommodation which is sufficient for him ; that the conduct of the landlord discloses avarice for increasing rent by threatening eviction, that the landlord has been letting out some other premises at enhanced rent without any attempt at occupying the same or using it for himself; that the dependents of the landlord for whose benefit also the possession is sought are not persons to whom in the eye of law the landlord was bound to provide accommodation ; that the past conduct of the landlord is such as would disentitle him to the relief of possession; that the landlord who claims possession for his personal requirement has not cared to approach the Court in person though he could have without the slightest inconvenience approached in person and with a view to schielding himself from cross examination prosecutes litigation through an agent called a constituted attorney ; these and several other relevant but inexhaustible facts when disclosed should ordinarily be deemed to be sufficient to grant leave." 9. Applying the approach and the touch stone provided by the learn ed Judges of the Supreme Court in Precision Steel and Engineering Works and another v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal (supra) to the facts disclosed by the respondents-tenants in their affidavits, this Court is of the view that the Rent Controller has rightly granted them leave to contest. Applying the approach and the touch stone provided by the learn ed Judges of the Supreme Court in Precision Steel and Engineering Works and another v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal (supra) to the facts disclosed by the respondents-tenants in their affidavits, this Court is of the view that the Rent Controller has rightly granted them leave to contest. Their defence, that there does not exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the gift made in favour of the petitioner landlord by Smt. Satya Devi Sood is collusive and sham transaction and is only a camouflage to get eviction as neither the ground of bona fide requirement nor any other ground is available to her in view of her occupation of spacious accommodation and disposal of other residential sets on exorbitant price after getting them vacated, if ultimately proved by way of evidence, would disentitle the petitioner-landlord from obtaining an order of recovery of possession under sub clause (iii), Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 14 or under section 15 of the Act, Prima facie, this defence is not so frivolous, superficial and without any basis as to deny leave to contest to the respondents-tenants. 10. The sum and substance of the arguments addressed by Sh. A. K. Goel on behalf of the petitioner-landlord is to show that the defence disclosed in the affidavits of the respondents-tenants is without any merit, which has not to be gone into at the stage envisaged under sub-section (5) of section 16 of the Act. His contentions, inter alia, that the defence of the respondents-tenants that the gift made in favour of the petitioner-land lord is a sham transaction in view of the provisions of Benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988 the respondents-tenants have no locus standi to challenge the gift made in favour of the petitioner-landlord in view of section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act and that the predecessor in-interest of the respondents-tenant:, Sh. Dhan Raj Gussain never challenged the said gift despite receipt of notice dated 2-11 1991 given to him asking him to attorn the petitioner-landlord as the premises in dispute stood transferred in his favour by way of a gift by Srat Satya Devi Sood, will be considered by the Rent Controller after making further enquiry as provided under subsection (7) of section 16 of the Act The petitioner-landlord will get possession of the premises in dispute as a specified landlord if, after enquiry, the facts disclosed in the affidavits of the respondents-tenants are found not proved and without merit. The result of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this revision petition and it is dismissed in limine. Costs easy. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller (3), Shimla, on 3-10-1994. The Rent Controller is directed to complete the trial of the eviction petition, as far as possible, within a period of six months. Revision petition dismissed.