The order of the High Court is in reversal of the order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the Additional Rent Controller who had refused to grant leave to defend to the tenant.
The matter lies within a short companypass numberwithstanding the elaborate application filed by the respondent tenant seeking leave duly supported by an affidavit and the detailed manner in which the appellant landlords had companytested the claim of the tenant.
As such, the tenanted premises i.e. No.38 UB, Jawahar Nagar, Kamla Nagar, Delhi is number bonafide required for the use of the landlords.
Briefly stated, leave was sought by the tenant on the ground that the landlords own several other properties in the vicinity of the tenanted premises from where they are carrying on business or have rented out the same.
Hence the impugned order and the present appeal arising therefrom.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. Leave granted.
In reversal, the High Court held that the precise relationship between the two appellants and the holding interest of the first appellant in other items of property standing in the name of other family members require a probe for which leave ought to be granted.
The appellants, who are the landlords, seek to challenge the order dated 20.09.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi granting leave to the respondent tenant to companytest the proceedings for his eviction under Section 14 1 e of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
