https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465027 Leave to defend under section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was unavailable because the tenant's affidavit did not disclose specific facts creating a triable issue on landlord-tenant relationship; a bare denial and reliance on an unregistered lease deed were insufficient, while rent receipts, correspondence, and prior notices supported the landlord's case. The termination notice was held valid despite a reference that the tenancy should not become heritable, so the eviction petition was not defective for non-joinder of heirs. A premises did not lose its residential character merely because part of it was used for office work, so the statutory eviction ground under section 14-A(1) remained available. en-us Wed, 03 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Dec 2025 15:26:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465027 Leave to defend under section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was unavailable because the tenant's affidavit did not disclose specific facts creating a triable issue on landlord-tenant relationship; a bare denial and reliance on an unregistered lease deed were insufficient, while rent receipts, correspondence, and prior notices supported the landlord's case. The termination notice was held valid despite a reference that the tenancy should not become heritable, so the eviction petition was not defective for non-joinder of heirs. A premises did not lose its residential character merely because part of it was used for office work, so the statutory eviction ground under section 14-A(1) remained available. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465027