Sultan Singh, J.
(1) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 25th September, 1980 dismissing the petitioner's application for leave to defend and consequently passing an order of eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act against him. The respondents filed an application under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act for the eviction of the petitioner alleging that they were the owners of the property bearing municipal No. 5700, Gali No. 80-81, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, that the premises are residential, that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in December, 1969 on a monthly rent of Rs.l30.00 , that a rent note was executed but the some was not available at the time when he filed the eviction application. It has been further alleged that the suit premises were required for the residence of respondents No. 1 and 4 and their families. The family of respondent No. 1 consists of herself, her husband, four sons aged 23, 20, 18 and 14 years respectively and one daughter aged 11 years. The family of respondent No. 4 consists of hereself, her husband, two daughters and one son. It has been further alleged that respondent No. 1 is in occupation of premises at 7/4, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi owned by her husband as a co-owner. As regards respondent No. 4 it has been alleged that her husband, Mr. B. L. Vobra, is employed as a Personal Assistant to the Principal of the Maitreyi College, Netaji Nagar, New Delhi, that at present they have been living at Sonepat at a Government Shop-Cum-Flat No. 6 Sonepat where from her husband comes to Delhi to attend to his duties which is very inconvenient and expensive, that respondent No. 4 and her husband desire to come down to Delhi and take up residence in the suit premises along with their family members.
(2) The petitioner-tenant in his application for leave to defend has seriously contested that the premises were residential, and his allegation is that the premises were let both for residential-cum-commercial purpose, that he is M.A. in English and has been holding classes in English in suit premises, that he has filed the original rent receipt dated 2C-1-1980 showing that the premises were residential-cum-commercial as per agreement. This receipt also shows the tenancy premises as ground floor. The petitioner has further stated that the eviction petition pertains to a portion of the premises under his tenancy. His case is that the entire ground floor has been under his tenancy while the respondents have filed the eviction application with respect to two rooms. For this defense also he relied upon the said rent receipt. Other grounds for leave to defend are that the respondents four is member are not in a position to occupy the premises, that they intend to sell the same, that negotiations have been going on for the sale of the suit property, that the husband of respondent No. 4 had a house in Sham Nagar which he sold, that the accommodation at Tilak Nagar with respondent No. 1 consists of six living rooms besides two kitchens, two stores, two latrines, verandahs and open space on the ground floor of House No. 7/4, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
(3) The respondents in their reply to the application for leave to defend controverter all the grounds of the petition. They alleged that the premises were let for residence purposes alone, that rent agreement was executed on 2nd December, 1969 which they filed in original on record. They have further stated that respondents 1 and 4 were not in possession of any suitable residential accommodation. As regards the rent receipt it has been alleged that if any receipt shows the entire ground floor in the tenancy of the tenant the same was not genuine. The receipt filed by the petitioner-tenant on record has not been specifically denied by the respondent. The Additional Controller has held that the pleas raised by the petitioner-tenant do not give rise to triable issues. After going through the application for leave to defend and the reply of the respondent together with rent deed dated 2nd December, 1969 filed by the respondent and the receipt dated 20th January, 1980 I am of the view that there are various triable issues and leave to defend cannot be refused to the petitioner- tenant.
(4) The rent deed purports to bear the signatures of the landlord and the tenant. It is not written on stamp paper. It is doubtful whether the rent deed is admissible in evidence. The rent deed no doubt describes the extent of the tenancy premises as well as the purpose of letting. As against this there is original rent receipt purporting to have been signed by Mr. B. L. Vohra, husband of one of the respondents. According to this receipt the extent of premises is ground floor and the purpose of letting is residenlial-cum-commercial. Besides this there is a dispute about the existing accommodation available to the respondents-landlords. According to the the respondents they are in possession of two rooms at Tilak Nagar, while according to the petitioner-tenant the respondents are in possession of six rooms at Tilak Nagar besides other facilities. Thus prima facie there are disputed questions of fact and law. There is a dispute about the extent of the tenancy premises. There is a dispute about the purpose of letting besides other disputes raised by the petitioner-tenant. If any of these points are deemed to be proved at this,stage, the respondents would not be entitled to an order of eviction against the petitioner-tenant. Moreover when there are disputed facts the same cannot be decided on the basis of the affidavits of the parties. The opportunity must be given to prove facts by evidence. It has been consistently held by this court that if disputed questions of facts are raised and their decision is necessary to grant relief to the landlord, then those questions should not be decided on affidavits and leave to contest should be granted. Similarly if there is a dispute of genuineness of a document as in this case the rent receipt or the rent deed, such disputes cannot be decided on the basis of the affidavits and evidence must be allowed to be producer Reference in this connection be made to R. C. Jain v. S. K. Gupta etc. 1979 RLR 560, Wing Comm. R. P. Jaiswal v. Hans Raj 1979 RLR 17, Dr. Shiv Nath v. Piyarelal Sharma, 1979 RLR 25. Mool Chand v. Ganda Ram, 1977 RLR 240, Kalyan Singh v. J. P. Gupta, 1977 RLR 242, Fateh Singh v. Hukam Chand, 1977 RLR 244.
(5) Thus I find that the impugned order is not according to law. The same is set aside. The revision is accepted and the petitioner-tenant is granted leave to defend the eviction petition. There will be no order as to costs. Parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 7th December, 1981.