( 1 ) CM Appl. Nos. 16482-16483/2005. These applications are filed on behalf of the respondent. The same are dismissed. CM Appl. 3371/2005: allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of. RC Rev. 26/2005 and CMAppl. 3370/2005 and Caveat 36/2005: rc. Rev. 26/2005 is directed against the order dated 3. 11. 2004 of the additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby the learned Controller has allowed the petition of the respondent under Section 14 ( 1 ) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and has dismissed the petition for leave to defend of the petitioner. ( 2 ) IT is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that inspite of triable issues having been raised, the learned Additional Rent Controller has not granted leave to defend. He also submits that subsequent to the eviction petition by notice dated 2. 12. 2004 the respondent had created a tenancy which was sought to be terminated for non-payment of enhanced rent. He submits that this itself is an issue which the trial Court should go into. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the respondent on the other hand contends that the notice dated 2. 12. 2004 was not one creating a tenancy but was only for enforcement of payment of amounts on account of use and occupation of the premises in question after the eviction order has been passed. He has also filed an affidavit explaining the reason for issue of notice dated 2. 12. 2004. ( 4 ) HEARD Counsel for the parties and have gone through the order under challenge. It appears to me that subsequent events primarily notice dated 2. 12. 2004 does create some kind of doubt as to what was the true intention of the respondent and that the same needs to be gone into. In that view of the matter, the order dated 3. 11. 2004 is set aside. Leave to defend is granted. ( 5 ) RC. Rev. 26/2005, CM Appl. 3370/2005 and Caveat 36/2005 are disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 7. 2. 2006. Lower Court record, if any, be sent back forthwith. RC Rev. , CM and Caveat disposed of. .