JUDGMENT Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of the Delhi High Court upholding decision of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi (in short the Rent Controller ) declining leave to the present appellant to contest in a proceeding under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 3. Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction on several grounds; primarily on the ground of personal requirements. Before the Rent Controller an application was moved under Section 25-B of the Act by the appellant-tenant for gr JUDGMENT Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of the Delhi High Court upholding decision of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi (in short the Rent Controller ) declining leave to the present appellant to contest in a proceeding under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 3. Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction on several grounds; primarily on the ground of personal requirements. Before the Rent Controller an application was moved under Section 25-B of the Act by the appellant-tenant for gr 2002(8) Supreme 627 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (From Delhi High Court) Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & Arijit Pasayat, JJ. N.C. Daga -Appellant versus Inder Mohan Singh Rana -Respondent Civil Appeal No. 8131 of 2002 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21346/2001) Decided on 5-12-2002 Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Sections 14(1)(e) r/w 25B-Eviction petition on ground of bona fide need of landlord under summary procedure-Leave to defend applied by tenant-Appellant but declined by ARC and eviction decree passed-Confirmed by High Court in Revision-Possession taken in execution-Appeal to Supreme Court by evicted tenant-Letting purpose alleged to be composite and not residential as alleged by landlord-Implied consent pleaded for such user-Whether be looked into as triable issue? (No, it will only be an academic exercise)-Appeal dismissed. Held : In view of the admitted position that pursuant to the order passed by the Rent Controller, possession has been taken on execution of the order permitting eviction, and absence of specific stand regarding implied consent it is, however, not necessary to go into the finer details and to examine the rival stand in the background of legal position as it would amount to rendering decision on a purely academic question. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, without any order as to costs. (Para 6) Counsel for the Parties : For the Appellant : Jaspal Singh, Sr. Advocat For the Respondent : Salman Khurshid, Sr. Advocate, Vivek Singh and Devendra Singh, Advocates. IMPORTANT POINT Where pursuant to order of eviction passed by Rent Controller in summary procedure under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, possession has been taken on execution of the order permitting eviction, tenant s appeal against refusal to grant leave to defend (on purpose of letting) would amount to rendering decision on a purely academic question. Hence appeal is liable to be dismissed. JUDGMENT Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment of the Delhi High Court upholding decision of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi (in short the Rent Controller ) declining leave to the present appellant to contest in a proceeding under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 3. Brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction on several grounds; primarily on the ground of personal requirements. Before the Rent Controller an application was moved under Section 25-B of the Act by the appellant-tenant for gr