G.R. Luthra, J.
1. The present revision petition is directed against an order dated 25th April, 1981 of Shri K.C. Lohia, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. Vide said order an application for leave to defend filed by the tenants was dismissed and the tenants were directed to be evicted.
2. Originally the tenant was Shri J.B. Kansal in respect of a portion of the first floor of house No. 34 UA, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. He, however, died during the pendency of the litigation and was succeeded by his widow Smt. Kaushalya Rani and his minor son Deepak Kumar who are now the petitioners before this Court. S. Waryam Singh is the respondent and he is landlord of the premises.
3. According to S. Waryam Singh he is the owner of property No. 34 UA, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. There is no dispute about the portion which is in occupation of Smt. Kaushalya Rani and her son. The landlord brought a petition under Section 25B read with Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for eviction of the tenant. According to the landlord, he required the tenanted portion for his occupation and that of his dependent sons, namely, Mohan Singh and Arjun Singh and a grandson Capt. K.N. Singh. The exact words in which the landlord described the details of the accommodation with him as well as his necessity are reproduced below :
(i) On the ground floor--Two rooms, store and a kitchen are occupied by Shri Mohan Singh, son of the petitioner.
(ii) Eldest son of the petitioner Shri Pritam Singh died about 4/5 years ago and the petitioner's grandson Captain K.N. Singh with his wife and a daughter and two sisters occupies the remaining portion of the ground floor for his residence (shown in yellow).
(iii) On the first floor-three rooms, store and kitchen are occupied by Shri Arjun Singh--son of the petitioner (shown in black).
(iv) The portion marked in red is in occupation of the respondent while the other tenant Shri S.K. Bhatia is in possession of one room, store and a kitchen (shown in green).
(v) The petitioner is an old man and was living in a village in District Jullundar. Owing to old age the petitioner and his wife both aged 81 years and 77 years have come to Delhi to be near their sons and also to get medical aid as and when required besides regular care.
(vi) The petitioner himself has no accommodation at all.
4. As the procedure adopted was summary and notice of the petition was given to the tenant, an affidavit was filed for leave to defend. In the affidavit it was stated that S. Waryam Singh was not the owner of the property, that the petition for eviction was mala fide, that the landlord had already sufficient accommodation with him, that he had wrongly stated that his wife was living with him, that actually his wife was living in a village and that his two sons and a grandson were not dependent but were fully independent and were having separate ration cards.
5. The latest exposition of law in respect of grant of leave to defend is the judgment of the Supreme Court in Precision Steel & Engineering Works and Anr. v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal 22 (1982) D.L.T. 458. It is laid down (specially para 24 of the judgment) that for the purpose of finding out if the tenant is entitled to leave to defend or not, the court has to confine itself only to the affidavit field by the tenant and if that affidavit discloses sufficient facts entitling grant of leave, leave to defend must be given. Some instances of the facts which disclose good ground for granting leave have been given and one of the instances is that the landlord has in his possession accommodation which is sufficient for him. Another instance is that the dependents of the landlord for whose benefit also the possession is sought are not persons to whom in eye of law the landlord was bound to provide accommodation or the said dependents are not actually depending upon the landlord.
6. In the present case it appears from the allegations of the landlordthat the sons and grandson of the landlord are living with/him. It is amatter to be seen, considered and decided on trial if the said accommodationis sufficient or not. Then the affidavit discloses that those sons and grandsonof the petitioner are not dependent upon the landlord. That matter alsocan be decided at the trial.
7. Under the above circumstances it is obvious that the affidavit does disclose such facts as entitle the tenant to grant of leave to defend. Thus, leave to defend was wrongly refused by the Additional Rent Controller.
8. I, thereforee, accept the revision petition, set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller and grant leave to defend to the petitioners Smt. Kaushalya Rani and her son Deepak Kumar.
9. It has been rightly pointed out by the counsel for the laddlord respondent in this petition that the case was instituted in 1977, that the summary procedure although intended to expeditious has proved to be dilatory and that, thereforee, some directions be given so that there is expeditions disposal of the petition by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller shall decide this petition very expeditiously by giving some priority. Further, the Rent Controller shall fix two separate sets of dates--one set for recording evidence of the petitioner and the other set for recording evidence of the respondent and give the adjournment only in extreme cases.
10. The parties are hereby directed to appear before the Rent Controller, Delhi, who, as I am told now, is Mrs. Kanwal Inder on 9th March, 1983. The Rent Controller will be at liberty to decide the matter either herself or send it to any of the Additional Rent Controllers. The file of the trial court along with a copy of this judgment must be sent by the Registry immediately so that those reach before the date fixed before the Rent Controller.
11. Civil Revision No. 563/81 stands disposed of. No order as tocosts.