Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) THE tenant has come up in revision under Section25b (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as "the Act) challenging the order passed on 25/04/1994 by Shri P. D. Gupta, Additional Rentcontroller, Delhi rejecting his application for leave to contest the eviction petitionand simultaneously allowing the application of the owner/landlord filed undersection 14 (l) (e) of the Act ordering the tenant s eviction. ( 2 ) THE tenant s eviction was sought by the respondents from the premisescomprising one room, latrine, bath room, as shown in red colour in the plan attachedwith the petition being a part of property known as C-84, Jitar Nagar, Delhi. ( 3 ) THE respondents alleged that the tenant was let out the premises, which areowned by respondent No. 1, Amar Singh. The same are now required byrespondent No. 1 for himself and the other members of his family who aredependent upon him. The accommodation in his occupation as shown in blue in theplan attached was highly insufficient for his requirements. The family of respondentno. 1 consists of himself, his wife, three married sons one of whom is respondentno. 2. Respondent No. 1 along with his family and respondent No. 2 stays in theaccommodation shown in blue in the plan. Thus the requirement of the accommo-dation in tenant s possession is bona fide. ( 4 ) THE tenant contested the petition by filing an affidavit. He alleged that theproperty in occupation of the respondents was not a part of property bearing No. C 84, Jitar Nagar, Delhi but the same was a separate and distinct property known asa-39, Jitar Nagar, Delhi. Moreover, eviction had not been sought from the entiretenanted premises. He was a tenant with respect to the entire plot bearing No. C 84, Jitar Nagar, Delhi. In addition, it was alleged that the ground of bona fiderequirement was concocted one. Neither respondent No. 1 nor any other memberof his family had been residing in premises A-39, Jitar Nagar, Delhi. The premiseswas also not required for any bona fide purpose. ( 5 ) THE respondents contested the tenant s stand by filing their respectiveaffidavits. The Controller through the impugned order, after considering thetenant s affidavit held that the same does not disclose such facts which would disentitle the respondents from claiming eviction. The premiseswas also not required for any bona fide purpose. ( 5 ) THE respondents contested the tenant s stand by filing their respectiveaffidavits. The Controller through the impugned order, after considering thetenant s affidavit held that the same does not disclose such facts which would disentitle the respondents from claiming eviction. No triable issue arises for determination and as such petitioner was not entitled for leave to contest. It is this orderwhich is under challenge. ( 6 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through therecord. ( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has by placing reliance on the decision inprecision Steel and Engineering Works and Another v. Prem Deva Niranjan Davatayal, AIR 1982 S. C. 1518 urged that the jurisdiction to grant leave to contest orrefuse the same is to be exercised on the basis of affidavit filed by the tenant. Thatalone at this stage is the relevant document and if averments made in the affidavitdisclosed such facts, which if ultimately proved to the satisfaction of the Courtwould disentitle the landlord from recovering possession, that by itself would makeit obligatory upon the Controller to grant leave. It is immaterial that the facts allegedand disclosed are controvertd by the landlord because the stage of proof is yet tocome. It was contended that the Controller thus erred in rejecting the applicationsince the facts in the affidavit did disclose a triable issue. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent on the other hand by placing reliance onanother decision of Supreme Court in Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nand, 21 (1982) Delhi Law Times 378 urged that the Additional Rent Controller was justifiedin rejecting the application, since the tenant had failed to make out a prima facie casefor grant of leave to contest. ( 9 ) CONSIDERING the inforementioned submissions, I do not find that there is anyerror in the approach which the Controller adopted in this case, which is perfectlyin consonance with the requirements laid down in Precision Steel and Engineeringworks s case (Supra) and the conclusions arrived at by the Controller are supportedon the basis of the material on record. ( 10 ) THE tenant in his affidavit, on the face of it, has tried to confuse the issue asregards the identity of the property, namely, tenanted premises and premises inoccupation of landlord. ( 10 ) THE tenant in his affidavit, on the face of it, has tried to confuse the issue asregards the identity of the property, namely, tenanted premises and premises inoccupation of landlord. According to him, the premises A-39 and C-84 are twoseparate and distinct properties located at two different places. He has not placedon record any plan and in his affidavit has nowhere disputed the correctness of theplan filed by the landlord, along with the petition for eviction, which was dulyserved upon him. Measurements in detail and the accommodation in occupation ofthe petitioner and respondents are separately and distinctly shown. The tenant hasalso not disputed the fact that respondent No. 2 is in occupation of the accommodation at A-39, Jitar Nagar, Delhi. The plan describes premises A-39 juxtaopposed topremises C-84. It in fact further shows that it is the same property. It is so disclosedon the top of the plan. The premises at A-39 consists of a room with small kitchen,bath and latrine attached to it. It is a part of property C-84, which is a plot of landmeasuring 20 x 44 . This accommodation shown in red is in occupation of the tenant. There is also a tent pitched on one side of this plot. It is not disputed by the tenantthat respondent Karan Singh, who is the son of respondent, Amar Singh is anassistant Commandant in C. R. P. F. and is presently posted in Delhi. According tothe petitioner s own affidavit he at the time of filing of the affidavit was posted atrampur, U. P. , but after the respondents filed their affidavits they disclosed thatkaran Singh was posted back to New Delhi in Head Quarter. It is also stated thatamar Singh, respondent No. 1 had been getting treatment from G. B. Plant Hospitaland had been residing in the premises along with his son Karan Singh who wasposted back to Delhi and intends to being his family to Delhi since he had not beenallotted any family accommodation. The tenant/petitioner in rejoinder stated thatthe posting back of Karan Singh in the C. R. P. F. Headquarters, C. G. O. Complex,lodhi Colony, New Delhi is immaterial since at the time of filing of the petition hewas not posted at Delhi. ( 11 ) THE Controller noticed that the ownership of respondent Amar Singh to thepremises was not in dispute. The tenant/petitioner in rejoinder stated thatthe posting back of Karan Singh in the C. R. P. F. Headquarters, C. G. O. Complex,lodhi Colony, New Delhi is immaterial since at the time of filing of the petition hewas not posted at Delhi. ( 11 ) THE Controller noticed that the ownership of respondent Amar Singh to thepremises was not in dispute. It was also not in dispute that the premises had beenlet out to the tenant for residential purpose and thus the only controversy which wassought to be raked up was as to whether the premises were required bona fide bythe respondents for their residence and that whether the respondents had any otherreasonably suitable accommodation available for them for their bona fide requirement. From the affidavit of the tenant, the Controller found that the affidavit did notdisclose any triable issue. The other two married sons of respondent Amar Singhadmittedly are not been residing in Delhi and are posted in Himachal Pradesh. Theallegation that respondent No. 1 Amar Singh is residing in the premises has halfheartedly been opposed by the petitioner. In his rejoinder the tenant stated thatgetting treatment from G. B. Plant Hospital by respondent Amar Singh is immaterial. The other fact that respondent No. 2 had been posted in Headquarters C. R. P. F. ,c. G. O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and had not been allotted any familyaccommodation was also half heartedly opposed in the affidavit filed in rejoinder. When these allegations are not being seriously contested by the tenant, it cannot besaid that a triable issue arises for consideration, thereby entitling the tenant leave todefend. The entire purpose of trying such petitions summarily will be frustrated incase on vague allegations leave to defend is granted. In Charan Dass Duggal s case (Supra), it is held that wholly frivolous contentions does not entitle a tenant leaveto defend. When leave to defend is sought the tenant must make out such a primafade case raising such pleas that a triable issue would emerge. ( 12 ) HAVING considered the tenants affidavit in the light of above facts, thecontroller cannot be said to have committed any illegality or irregularity indeclining leave. No fault can be found in the impugned order in rejecting thetenant s application for leave to defend on the ground that the tenant had failed tomake out a prima fade case. ( 12 ) HAVING considered the tenants affidavit in the light of above facts, thecontroller cannot be said to have committed any illegality or irregularity indeclining leave. No fault can be found in the impugned order in rejecting thetenant s application for leave to defend on the ground that the tenant had failed tomake out a prima fade case. The Controller also rightly came to the conclusion thaton leave being declined, the respondents were entitled to an order of eviction againstthe petitioner. Consequently, the revision which has no force is dismissed in limine. ( 13 ) IN the impugned order it was provided that the eviction order shall not beexecutable for a period of six months, which period has since expired on 2 5/10/1994. Accordingly, it is ordered that in case the tenant/petitioner, with-ina period of one week from today, would place on record a usual affidavit, withadvance copy to the respondents, to be served through their Counsel, agreeing andundertaking to hand over and deliver vacant and peaceful possession of thepremises in question to the respondents on or before 31/03/1995 and alsoundertaking that he will not allow any other person to use the premises or part withthe possession, the order of eviction shall not be executed till 31/03/1995. Thisof course will be on the tenant s paying/depositing all arrears within a week andcontinuing to pay/deposit use and occupation charges month by month on or beforethe 10th day of each month at the rate at which rent was payable. On failure of thetenant/petitioner to place on record an affidavit within one week, will entitle therespondents to execute the order of eviction forthwith. No costs.