R. Banumathi, J.— Leave granted. In this appeal, the short question falling for consideration is whether the appellant be granted leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the respondent landlords.
2. The appellant is a tenant in respect of shop premises situated on the ground floor of Property No. 6157, Partap Street, Behind Kothi Bhagwan Dass, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 since 1988. The appellant has been engaged in carrying on her business (Disco Hair Dresser) in the said premises. The respondent landlords filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the DRC Act) against the appellant, inter alia, on the ground of bona fide requirement to open office-cum-display counter on the main road side to expand their business of cosmetic unit. The appellant filed application under Section 25-B(5) of the DRC Act read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave to defend the eviction petition. The appellant raised the plea that there is no bona fide requirement and that the respondents have alternative accommodation. The Additional Rent Controller, Karkardooma Court, Delhi dismissed the application of the appellant tenant on the ground that the appellant has failed to raise any triable issue. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed revision petition before the High Court under sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the DRC Act and the same was dismissed Revision Petition No. 347 of 2011. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
3. We have heard the counsel for the appearing parties. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the landlords needed the property in question to expand their business, as the space currently available to them is insufficient. It was submitted that the appellant tenant owned another property, along with her husband in the same locality, where she could shift her business. The appellant tenant denied the issues raised by the respondent landlords with respect to having alternative accommodations.
4. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the rival contentions, lest, it would amount to expression of views on the merits of the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view, that the appellant has raised a triable issue, in the sense, that there is a fair dispute to be tried in the eviction petition and the appellant be granted leave to defend. However, leave to defend could be granted to the appellant only conditionally. When the revision petition was pending before the High Court, the appellant agreed to pay to the landlords rent @ Rs 3000 per month and the same could be continued.
5. The impugned order of the High Court in Shanti Devi v. Rajesh Kumar Jain Revision Petition No. 347 of 2011 is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant shall file her reply statement before the Additional Rent Controller, Karkardooma Court, Delhi within four weeks from today and the learned Additional Rent Controller shall afford sufficient opportunity to both the parties and proceed with the matter in accordance with law and dispose of the same preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till the disposal of the eviction petition, the appellant shall continue to pay rent @ Rs 3000 per month on or before 7th of each succeeding English calendar month. No costs.