Mr. Devinder Gupta, J. ( 1 ) THE tenant has come up in revision against theorder passed on 15/10/1993 by Shri D. S. Bawa, Additional Rent Controller,delhi dismissing his application seeking leave to contest and simultaneouslypassing an order of his eviction from the ground floor of House No. 7233 to 7236 in1/38 Roop Nagar, Delhi. ( 2 ). The tenant s eviction was sought by the landlord/respondent undersection 14 (1 ) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as "the Act")for his bona fide use and occupation by the landlord for himself and for othermembers of his family dependent upon him. It was alleged that premises areresidential and were let out for residence and are also located in residential colony. Neither the landlord nor any member of his family owned any other residentialaccommodation in Delhi, New Delhi or at any other place and claimed that hisfamily consists of himself, his wife, two daughters, his son and parents. In addition,there was a servant. The landlord in the eviction petition gave details of themanner in which he proposed to use and utilise every part of the building inquestion owned by him having four units therein, two in each floor, each describedseparately by a distinct number with disputed premises known as House No. 7233and the others 7234 to 7236. The tenant sought leave to contest by filing anapplication within the period of limitation. In the affidavit, the tenant took up aplea that the entire property 1/38, Roop Nagar, Delhi was constructed by itsowner/landlord Shri Dal Chand Thekadar about 40 years back. Ground floorportion comprising many units were let out by the owner to the members of weakersection of society for using the tenanted premises for residential-cum-commercialpurpose. It was alleged that he was also let out the accommodation in the groundfloor more than 30 years ago under the explicit consent, knowledge and permissionof the landlord/owner for using the tenanted premises for residential as well ascommercial purposes like other tenants of the ground floor. According to thetenant, he had been carrying on part/whole time business of different nature suchas florist, a repair and assembly of old iron strips, tailoring and cuttings,upholstery, supply of sofa set material, assembling and packing of electrical goodsetc. to earn his livelihood. According to thetenant, he had been carrying on part/whole time business of different nature suchas florist, a repair and assembly of old iron strips, tailoring and cuttings,upholstery, supply of sofa set material, assembling and packing of electrical goodsetc. to earn his livelihood. It was also disclosed by the tenant in the affidavit thatin the locality each and every house in the ground floor was being used forresidence-cum-commercial purpose, since this area was otherwise surrounded bymany big industries like Greshem Factory, Jolly Factory etc. Eversince he wasinducted as a tenant, he had been making use of the property for residence-cum-commercial purpose. The tenant has also given detail of accommodation in theground floor of the complex with other tenants by disclosing their names who havebeen using their accommodation for residence-cum-commercial purpose. Anotherground taken by the tenant seeking leave to contest was that the landlord hadsufficient accommodation on the ground floor, first floor and terrace in which hecould comfortably accommodate the entire family. It was alleged that names ofparents had been got transferred in ration-card to the present address just tosubstantiate a false plea of bona fide requirement. Otherwise, the parents of thelandlord had got their own independent business and had their separate rationcards. According to the tenant, the landlord along with his elder brother and hisfamily were residing at House No. 20/45, Shakti Nagar, Delhi, which was sufficientto meet the requirements of landlord, his family as also the brother of the landlordand his family. ( 3 ). The landlord contested the tenants claim by filing the reply. In his affidavit,the landlord denied that premises were let out for carrying on any commercialactivity therein. It was contended that the premises were let out for residentialpurpose only and had been used as such. As per his version, commercial activitiesare prohibited in the locality. Regarding the details which the tenant has given inhis affidavit about the other persons making use of their accommodation also forresidential-cum-commercial purpose, the landlord contended that he had no concern with those persons but mere use of premises by those persons will not convertresidential premises into a commercial premises. Landlord asserted his claim thatpremises were badly needed for his bona fide use and occupation and for othermembers of family. ( 4 ). Landlord asserted his claim thatpremises were badly needed for his bona fide use and occupation and for othermembers of family. ( 4 ). The Additional Rent Controller, through the impugned order dealt with theground taken up by the tenant in detail and has returned a finding that the factsdisclosed in the tenant s affidavit do not give rise to any triable issue and thus thetenant was not entitled to grant of leave. ( 5 ). I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, who have also taken methrough the entire record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehementlycontended that in the facts and circumstances, leave ought to have been granted. The Controller was not justified in recording finding of fact without taking thepetition for trial and permitting the tenant to lead evidence. Triable issues do ariseon the facts disclosed in the affidavit. ( 6 ). Learned Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the averments made by learned Counsel for the plaintiff and urged that the Additional Rentcontroller was right in negativing the grounds taken by the tenant and holding thatpleas are vague and do not give rise to any triable issue. Leave to contest, accordingto learned Counsel for the respondent, could be given in a case where a very strongcase was made out by the tenant. There was absolutely no plea taken by the tenantthat premises were let out for commercial purpose. On the question of bona fiderequirement, the landlord was the best judge of his own requirements over whichtenant s whims could not be imposed. Learned Counsel for the parties have also placed reliance of a number of decisions of this Court in support of their submissions. ( 7 ). The Additional Rent Controller in his 10 page order discussed the merits ofthe claim of the tenant including the one as to whether the premises were or werenot let out for residence-cum-commercial purpose. After discussing the factsdisclosed in the affidavit, the Additional Rent Controller held that the premises arenot being used as fulfledged commercial purpose, as per tenant s own version. Incase the tenant is residing in the premises and is carrying on business, it will showthat the commercial activity, if at all, is being carried on only incidentally to thetenant s living there, which will not change the nature of the premises for thepurpose of letting. Incase the tenant is residing in the premises and is carrying on business, it will showthat the commercial activity, if at all, is being carried on only incidentally to thetenant s living there, which will not change the nature of the premises for thepurpose of letting. Such observations made by Additional Rent Controller arewholly unjustified in view of the facts disclosed in the tenant s affidavit. The tenantin his affidavit has asserted that the premises were let out to him under the explicitconsent, knowledge and permission of the landlord for using the same for residence as well as for commercial purpose, like other tenants in the ground floor. Eversince the day he was inducted, he has been using the premises as such. Thusit was be noticed that the Controller, instead of recording his finding as to whetherthe facts disclosed in the affidavit give rise to a triable issue or not, proceeded torecord a finding of fact on merits. This approach was also adopted by theadditional Rent Controller while considering the ground taken by the tenant asregards the other alternate accommodation available to the landlord. In fact thejurisdiction of the Controller at the Stage of considering the application for grant ofleave to contest is very limited. Controller s jurisdiction at the stage of granting orrefusing leave to contest has been subject matter of number of decisions by thesupreme Court, such as, Kulwant Singh v. Amarkaur, AIR 1982 S. C. 1172; Jamunadevi v. Kuduram, AIR 1982 S. C. 1456; Charan Dass v. Bhrama Nand, 21 (1982) DLT (S. C.)378 and AIR 1982 S. C. 1518. In the last decision, it has been held that thecontroller is not to record a finding on the disputed questions of fact at this stageor his preference on one set of affidavits against the other set of affidavits. Thecontroller while examining the question whether there is a proper case for grantingleave to contest the application or not has to confine himself to the affidavit filedby the tenant disclosing such fact as would prima facie, and not on contest,disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession. If theaverments in the affidavit disclose such facts, which if ultimately proved to thesatisfaction of the Court, would disentitle the landlord from the recoveringpossession that by itself makes it obligatory upon the Controller to grant leave. ( 8 ). If theaverments in the affidavit disclose such facts, which if ultimately proved to thesatisfaction of the Court, would disentitle the landlord from the recoveringpossession that by itself makes it obligatory upon the Controller to grant leave. ( 8 ). In the instant case, it was not in dispute that the landlord was a subsequentpurchaser, when tenant was already in occupation, who had been inducted in thepremises by his predecessor. The question whether or not the premises were letout for residential-cum-commercial purpose cannot be decided on merits withoutaffording parties permission to lead evidence. The observations by the Additionalrent Controller that even if the premises are in use by the tenant for commercialpurpose the same will not change the nature and character of the same fromresidence to commercial are wholly unwarranted. Equally the submission made onbehalf of the respondent is unfounded that there is no plea taken by the tenant thatpremises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose. The affidavit ofthe tenant in clear and categorical terms disclosed the fact that the premises werelet out to him by the predecessor of the respondent for residential-cum-commercialpurpose, like other tenants in the locality in the ground floor. In these circumstances the order of the Additional Rent Controller cannot be sustained since he hastravelled beyond his jurisdiction in recording findings of fact on merits of the pleaswithout taking the petition to trial. The result is that the revision is allowed, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The tenant s application for leave to contest is allowed. The Controllerwill now proceed to dispose of the matter on merits, in accordance with law. Theparties are directed to appear before the concerned Additional Rent Controller on ----- -.