S.C. Jain, J.
(1) The facts giving rise to this petition are that Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, petitioner herein, filed an eviction petition against Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent. Control Act as amended by the Amend Act, 1988 for recovery of immediate possession of premises situated at plot No. 9 Block No. 159. 4, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. Summons under Iii Schedule of the Delhi Rent Control Act were issued and the respondent appeared and filed an application seeking leave to defend the petition Along with an affidavit of Shri Ramesh Chandra, Executive Director of the respondent company. The facts as alleged in the affidavit are that the petitioner is residing at 27, Akbar Road which is known as 9, Man Singh Road having an area of 5 acres on which a two-storeyed building has been constructed. There are 30 large size rooms in that bungalow besides servant quarters numbering about 20 and garages etc. and the petitioner has more than three rooms in her exclusive possession besides that other rooms in the building are also available to her. The petitioner's son Gun Nidhi Dalmia is residing in a part of the premises with his wife and three daughters who are below the age of ten years. The petitioner has five daughters; Shiela Aggarwal is residing at Sardar Patel Marg, within the precincts of the Estate of Edward Kaventar (s) Pvt. Ltd, Vasudha is married and is settled at Germany, third daughter Yashodara is living with her husband at Bombay, fourth daughter Ilia is living at Sardar Patel Marg in another bungalow in the estate of Edward Kevender (s) Pvt. Ltd. fifth daughter Shakti Dalmia is living with the petitioner at 27 Akbar road. The whole house is at the disposal of the petitioner and her son and they have more than sufficient accommodation available with them. The petitioner is 70 years old and is well looked after by her family members. The petitioner has been living in that house since the time her husband had let out the premises in dispute to the respondent and after the premises were let to the respondent there has been no increase in the number of family members of the petitioner. If the son of the petitioner Gun Nidhi Dalmia got married and has three daughters added to his family, three daughters of the petitioner had also been married and shifted to their respective marital houses and Shri Ram Kishan Dalmia who also used to live at 27 Akbar Road has died and after his death several rooms which were in his possession also came in possession of the petitioner. There is no paucity of accommodation in the said house at 27 Akbar Road.
(2) The other point raised in the application seeking leave to defend is that earlier in 1985. the petitioner had filed a petition for eviction of the respondent under Section 14(1)(a) & (i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and there was no mention of the bonafide requirement. That petition was got dismissed as withdrawn in the year 1989. Again the petitioner filed a petition under Section 14(1)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for the purpose of rebuilding and making substantial alterations which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated. Even in that petition there was no mention of the bonafide requirement of the petitioner for her residence. There has not been any change in the circumstances from 1985 to 1989 necessitating the petitioner to file the petition for eviction on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. It has also been pleaded specifically that the petitioner has no intention to acquire the premises for residence. She wants to sell it off. As per the Information of the respondent the petitioner had entered into an agreement for disposal of the building to Dalmia Dairy International which fact find mention in the notice dated 26.7.85 served by Mr. Arun Jaitley Advocate on behalf of M/s. Twenty First Century Construction Pvt. Ltd. and a reply was received through Rajiv Nayyar in which he did not deny the receipt of Rs. 10 lakhs from Investors and Dealers Ltd. on 5.8.85, or about the deposit of Rs. 68,46,620.00 with the Land and Development Office and the petitioner has not taken refund of this amount. It is alleged that all these grounds taken by the respondent tenant in the application seeking leave to defend supported by an affidavit, go to show that leave to defend should be granted to it as requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide.
(3) In the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner landlady, she has stated that she has only right of residence In Kothi 27, Akbar Road. She has no ownership right in this property. She has also denied that she Is in exclusive possession of more than three rooms. The fact of filing of earlier eviction petitions on grounds other than personal bonafide requirement has not been denied. Regarding entering into an agreement she stated that she had intention to rebuild and redevelop the entire property with the help of a builder and she wanted to retain three or four flats for herself. She required the property in dispute bonafide for her residence and for the residence of the members of her family.
(4) The Rent Controller after appreciating the contents of the affidavits on record, came to the conclusion that these facts require investigation and respondent-tenant is entitled to grant of leave to defend and, thereforee, leave was granted to the tenant to contest the eviction petition.
(5) Aggrieved, this petition has been filed by the landlady Smt, Saraswati Dalmia.
(6) By the amended Act some more classes of landlord were carved from the classes of general landlords. Sections 14B or 14D are the provisions. The landlords who are widows are covered by Section 14D with similar right to recover immediate possession of the premises let out by them or by their husbands. Landlords will have to make necessary averments in the eviction petition so as to be able to make out the case under Sections 14B, 14C or 14D. On the summons being issued, the tenant would be at liberty to file an affidavit staling the grounds on which he seeks leave to contest the eviction petition. The Controller will have to apply his mind and come to the conclusion if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery of possession of the premises for bonafide requirement. Making of mere allegations by the tenant against the landlord is not enough to obtain leave to contest the eviction petition. Words 'discloses such facts' in sub Section (5) are important. The Controller will have to determine whether the facts and not mere allegations exist which would disentitle the landlord from obtaining leave under Sections 14B, 14C or 14D. A widow has also to prove her bonafide need for accommodation of the premises for her own residence like any other landlord.
(7) Keeping In view this provision of law, it has to be seen whether the order passed by the Rent Controller granting leave to the tenant is justified or not. In this regard it has come in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner landlady is living at 27, Akbar Road which is a huge building and three living rooms are in her exclusive possession' It has also come in the affidavit that earlier she filed eviction petitions twice against the respondent for eviction from the suit premises but she had never taken the plea of personal bonafide requirement and that there is no change in the circumstances from 1985 to 1989 to make the said requirement of the landlady bonafide.
(8) It is also in the affidavit that she wanted to dispose of the said property and had no Intention to reside therein, in as much as she had entered into an agreement with Twenty-first Century Construction Pvt. Ltd. and also received Rs. 10 lakhs from Inventors & Dealers Ltd. on 5.8.85 for that purpose. It has also been mentioned in the affidavit that Rs. 68,46,620.00 was deposited with the Land and Development Office for that purpose for getting permission for that purpose. She has not taken refund of the amount so far. These facts have not been specifically denied in the counter affidavit. At the stage of seeking permission to defend the eviction petition, the tenant is not required to prove his plea of sufficiency of accommodation with the landlord or the malafides on the part of the landlord. He is only required to raise such a plea, if proved, the same would disentitle the landlord from seeking possession of the premises in a summary manner. It this case, not only that the need of the landlady has been challenged but it has also been challenged that her need is bonafide. The Addl. Kent Controller rightly came to the conclusion that these facts require investigation and the respondent is entitled for leave to defend. There is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Rent Controller. There is also no jurisdictional error. I, thereforee, dismi's this revision petition at the admission stage itself. Petition dismissed. Supreme Court Of India Smt. Shrisht DHAWAN-Appellant Versus M/s. Shaw BROTHERS-Respondents Criminal Appeal No. 4927 of 1991 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (e) No. 4517 of 1991] Decided on 13-12-1991 (i) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 21 -Limited period Tenancy -Scope of Section-Meaning of fraud. Held (Per Thommen, J.) What the Section postulates is the bona fide belief of an honest and reasonable landlord, and not the reckless and casual opinion of an irresponsible and careless person. The question is, did the landlord make a fraudulent representation to the Controller about the absence of his requirement of the premises, i.e., knowingly that his statement was false or without belief in its truth or recklessly careless whether it was true or false. Did the landlord honestly believe that what he stated in his application to be a true and fair representation of the facts There is no fraud if what he honestly believed to be true turned out to be false. The Section does not place any higher degree of responsibility on the landlord. (Para 8) The Section requires that the premises have to be let out solely for the purpose of residence for the period agreed to in writing. If the agreement does not so stipulate, the Section is not attracted, and the Controller cannot sanction the lease in terms of the Section. No non-residential premises can come within the protection of the Section. On the other hand, if the premises let out as a residence in terms of the Section is deliberately used by the tenant for nonresidential purposes, he loses the protection of the statute for the period of the lease and the Controller can, on an application by the landlord, evict the tenant or any other person in occupation, and restore possession of the premises to the landlord forthwith. The Section protects the landlord and the tenant strictly in terms thereof, and on the fraud or deliberate breach by either party of the terms of the lease as contemplated by the Section, the protection is withdrawn from the guilty party. This means. If the permission of the Controller has been fraudulently obtained by the landlord, and the tenant has been let into the premises, the landlord loses the right to seek eviction of the tenant by the summary procedure contemplated by the Section. Likewise, if the tenant has deliberately but not accidentally violated the terms of the lease by