Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) THIS is tenant s revision petition filed under Section25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as "the Act"), seekingto set aside an order passed on 1/04/1994, by Shri K. S. Khurana, Additional Rentcontroller, Delhi, rejecting his application, for leave to contest and also simultaneously passing an order of eviction in favour of the landlord/respondent. ( 2 ) ON 22/03/1993, a petition for eviction under Section 14 (l) (e) read withsection 25b of the Act was preferred TO by the landlord seeking tenant s eviction fromthe first floor of premises bearing No. D-15, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, Newdelhi. It was alleged that the premises in question comprising two rooms with akitchen, bath, W. C. along with front and back verandah had been let out to the tenanton 3/07/1974 for residential purpose, which was required bona fide by thelandlord for his own use and for the use and occupation of his family members. Thelandlord was not having any other alternate reasonably sufficient and suitableaccommodation for the purpose. His family members consists of his wife, a marriedson and three married daughters. The marriage of the son was solemnized on 1 1/03/1993. There was no accommodation available for his son and daughter-in-law. He was having only two rooms, kitchen, bath, W. C. and open verandah. Inaddition, the married daughters usually and customarily have been coming andstaying with the landlord with their families. Eviction thus was sought undersummary procedure. . On being served, the tenant applied for grant of leave tocontest by filing his own affidavit. ( 3 ) THE tenant sought leave to contest alleging that at the time when the premiseswas let out to him, the family of the landlord consisted of himself, his wife, threedaughters and a son. Now with the passage of time the three daughters weremarried. Thus there has been reduction in the number of family members. Theaccommodation available in the ground floor was more than sufficient for therequirement of the petitioner and his family members, namely, his son anddaughter-in-law. A couple of years ago second floor in the same building had fallenvacant, which was let out by the landlord to another tenant. Thus the need was notbona fide. The landlord s son and daughter-in-law were earning members and werenot dependent for the purpose of accommodation on the landlord. A couple of years ago second floor in the same building had fallenvacant, which was let out by the landlord to another tenant. Thus the need was notbona fide. The landlord s son and daughter-in-law were earning members and werenot dependent for the purpose of accommodation on the landlord. The petition wasmala fide with a view to compel the tenant to enhanced rent. Ownership of thelandlord was also challenged. The stand taken by the tenant in his affidavit wascontroverted by the landlord in his reply-affidavit. The Controller through theimpugned order proceeded to reject the application holding that the affidavit filedin support of the application for leave to contest did not disclose any triable issue andconsequently proceeded to allow landlord s application holding that the premiseswere bona fide required for the personal use and occupation. It is this order whichis under challenge. ( 4 ) AT the admission stage, I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and havealso gone through the record. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the factsdisclosed in the affidavit do disclose triable issues. The facts, as alleged, if proved,would definately dis-entitle the landlord from claiming possession. Ownership oflandlord was in dispute. In addition, it was also alleged that the second floor hadfallen vacant which had been let out by the landlord, instead of occupying himself. From the date when the premises were let out to the tenant to the date when thepetition for eviction was filed, there had been reduction in the number of familymembers. Thus the need projected was exaggerated. All these facts, as disclosedin the affidavit, ought to have been held to be sufficient to allow tenant s applicationby granting him permission to contest. ( 6 ) ON going through the record and considering the submissions, I do not findany ground to interfere in the instant case. ( 7 ) THE tenant in the affidavit, after questioning the ownership of the landlord,did not specifically state that in case the landlord was not the owner, who else wasthe owner. Mere challenge to ownership without saying anything else cannot besaid to be giving rise to a triable issue. ( 7 ) THE tenant in the affidavit, after questioning the ownership of the landlord,did not specifically state that in case the landlord was not the owner, who else wasthe owner. Mere challenge to ownership without saying anything else cannot besaid to be giving rise to a triable issue. In order to enable a tenant to put any matterin issue, it is necessary that in the allegations made some material facts must bestated which prima fade would enable the Court to formulate an opinion that atriable issue does arise from the facts disclosed. A mere denial of a fact alleged bythe landlord in the petition for eviction without making specific averments insupport of the plea of denial cannot be said to be giving rise to a issue which mightbe put to trial. The Additional Rent Controller was also right in observing that denialby the tenant to the ownership of landlord does not give rise to a triable issue sincethe landlord has already placed on record material showing his ownership to theproperty. ( 8 ) THE second agitation by the tenant in his affidavit is that when the premiseswere let out to him, the family of the landlord consisted of three daughters, a son andhis wife and now the number of family members, instead of increasing haddecreased since three daughters have been married and now the family of thelandlord consists of himself, his son and daughter-in-law. In addition to thereduction in the family, the petitioner has retired from the job and was having morethan sufficient accommodation in his occupation. Connected with this is the otherobjection that petitioner had let out the second floor of the premises to one Mr. Sharma, a couple of years ago. Argument is that in case the petitioner wantedaccommodation or was in genuine need of additional accommodation, there was noreason as to on Mr. Sharma s vacation, the premises instead of being occupying bythe landlord would be let out to a fresh tenant. Sharma, a couple of years ago. Argument is that in case the petitioner wantedaccommodation or was in genuine need of additional accommodation, there was noreason as to on Mr. Sharma s vacation, the premises instead of being occupying bythe landlord would be let out to a fresh tenant. ( 9 ) THE question that whether tenant s version alone would be considered andnot the landlord s version or that whether tenant s version bona fide is such whichgive rise to a triable issue was considered in Precision Steel and Enginering Works andanother v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 S. C. 1518, wherein it was heldthat jurisdiction to grant leave to contest or refuse the same is to be exercised on thebasis of affidavit filed by tenant. If averments made in the affidavit disclose suchfacts which if ultimately proved to be to the satisfaction of the Court, woulddisentitle the landlord from recovering possession, the same by itself would makeit obligatory upon the Controller to grant leave. While holding so, it is also observedthat in case the allegations made in the tenant s affidavit are controverted by thelandlord that fact may be borne in mind. For the satisfaction of the Court that thefacts as disclosed in the affidavit prima facie give rise to a triable issue requiringinvestigation, it is all the more necessary to keep in mind the landlord s affidavitalso. But the facts disclosed in the tenant s affidavit must be such which are materialfacts leading to a triable issue and not a mere denial or assertion of some allegations. In the instant case the tenant in his affidavit merely denied the ownership of landlordand without giving other material particulars alleged that a few years ago secondfloor had fallen vacant, which was rented out. The Controller in the light of the factsdisclosed was right in observing that in the petition for eviction itself the landlordhad given sufficient particulars of his claim that his family consisted of himself, hiswife, a married son and three married daughters. The marriage of the son wassolemnized on 11/03/1993 and the landlord was not having any accommodation to accommodate his son and daughter-in-law. He wanted to settle his son anddaughter-in-law in the tenanted premises since the accommodation in his occupation was not sufficient to meet his requirement. His daughters, their husbands andchildren were customarily visiting the house. The marriage of the son wassolemnized on 11/03/1993 and the landlord was not having any accommodation to accommodate his son and daughter-in-law. He wanted to settle his son anddaughter-in-law in the tenanted premises since the accommodation in his occupation was not sufficient to meet his requirement. His daughters, their husbands andchildren were customarily visiting the house. In the light of these observations, itwas all the more necessary for the tenant to allege that when need arose someaccommodation other than the tenanted one had became available which was notoccupied by the landlord. ( 10 ) AS regards the second floor, it was clarified by the landlord that theaccommodation fell vacant in the year 1987, when there was no need and his son wasmarried after six years and thus there cannot be any question of mala fide. The plansubmitted by the landlord was not in dispute by the tenant. The perusal of whichwould show that the accommodation in the ground floor and the first floor isidentical. The tenant s version that there was an additional room in the ground floor,in the absence of any plan filed by him was also rightly ignored by the Controller. Inthese circumstances, no triable issue can be said to have arisen since the accommodation which fell vacant six years ago would not be a relevant factor when thelandlord states that need has arisen in the year 1993 when the marriage of his sontook place. ( 11 ) ON perusal of the entire record, I find that the Controller was justified incoming to the conclusion that tenant was not entitled to leave to defend. The resultis that the revision which has no force is dismissed. ( 12 ) IN the impugned order it was provided that the eviction order shall not beexecutable for a period of six months, which has since expired on 31/08/1994. In case the tenant/petitioner, within a period of one week from today, would placeon record the usual affidavit with advance copy to the respondent to be servedthrough his Counsel agreeing and undertaking to hand over and deliver vacant andpeaceful possession of the premises in question to the respondent on or before 3 1/03/1995 and also undertaking that he will not allow any other person to use thepremises or will part away with the possession, the order of eviction shall not beexecuted till 31/03/1995. This of course will be on the tenant s paying/depositing all arrears within a week and continuing to pay/deposit use andoccupation charges month by month on or before the 10th day of each month at therate at which rent was payable: Failure on the part of the tenant/petitioner to placeon record his on affidavit within one week, will automatically entitle the respondentto execute the order of eviction forthwith. No costs.