( 1 ) LEAVE granted. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) THE present appeal is directed against the order of the High Court confirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller by virtue of which the leave to defend application was rejected. The question which we are considering is, whether the courts below are justified in rejecting the application of leave to defend on the facts and circumstances of this case. It is not in dispute that Respondent 1 earlier filed an application under Section 14 (1 ) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act for bona fide need. The submission in the said application was, the landlord wanted to shift to Delhi from Punjab as he is a Dental Surgeon and thus he genuinely required the said accommodation. An application was filed by the appellant in support of his leave to contest and denied the landlords claim. It is stated therein that the application of the Respondent 1 landlord is fanciful, frivolous and also he has no title over the disputed premises. The case of the appellant is, the respondent is neither the owner nor the landlord, as the property belongs to one Smt Puna Devi who is the owner/landlord to whom he has been tendering the rent as landlord. In reply to this, Respondent 1 denied and referred to the lease deed dated 8-12-1980 to substantiate his claim as the owner of the property. ( 4 ) THE question is, whether on these facts, the courts below were justified in rejecting the application of the appellant for leave to defend. It is not proper for us to enter into the merits of the contentions in view of our findings, which we are hereunder going to give, which make this petition pending before the trial court. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Precision Steel and Engineering Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, we feel that this matter should not have been rejected at this stage. The submission on behalf of the respondent is that the lease deed clearly confirms the title of the respondent. But this again is a matter to be considered at trial not at this stage i. e. leave to defend application. At this stage neither evidence is to be weighed nor looked into. The submission on behalf of the respondent is that the lease deed clearly confirms the title of the respondent. But this again is a matter to be considered at trial not at this stage i. e. leave to defend application. At this stage neither evidence is to be weighed nor looked into. The purpose of introducing a provision like leave to defend, is only to find out frivolous, uncontestable cases at the initial stage, not to eliminate other class of cases which require adjudication after contest. In other words if there be no conceivable contest possible the litigation has to be nipped in the bud. In the present case we find that contest of the ownership of the landlord as such is seriously challenged. ( 5 ) IN view of this, we set aside the orders passed by the High Court and the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi and remand the case back to the Rent controller for deciding the matter afresh. We observe in view of the facts of this case, that the Rent Controller will dispose of this matter between the parties preferably within a period of three months from the date the certified copy of this order is filed before the said authorities. The parties shall file the certified copy of this order within four weeks from today, and on that date the court will then fix the next date and proceed to dispose of in accordance with law. With the said observation, the appeal is disposed of. Costs on the parties.