The Supreme Court in the case of Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh (2001) 1 SCC 706 has specified that the Leave to Defend to a tenant cannot be granted on a mere asking and what has to be seen while granting a Leave to Defend Application is that there is a strong prima facie case against the landlord who is seeking eviction. The relevant para of the said judgment is extracted here:
“13. We are of the considered view that at a stage when the tenant seeks leave to defend, it is enough if he prima facie makes out a
case by disclosing such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction. It would not be a right approach to say that unless the tenant at that stage itself establishes a strong case as would non-suit the landlord, leave to defend should not be granted when it is not the requirement of Section 25-B(5). A leave to defend sought for cannot also be granted for mere asking or in a routine manner which will defeat the very object of the special provisions contained in Chapter III-A of the Act. Leave to defend cannot be refused where an eviction petition is filed on a mere design or desire of a landlord to recover possession of the premises from a tenant under clause (e) of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14, when as a matter of fact the requirement may not be bona fide…. The ground under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 enables a landlord to recover possession of the tenanted premises on the ground of his bona fide requirement. This being an enabling provision, essentially the burden is on the landlord to establish his case affirmatively. In short and substance, a wholly frivolous and totally untenable defence may not entitle a tenant to leave to defend, but when a triable issue is raised a duty is placed
on the Rent Controller by the statute itself to grant leave. At the stage of granting leave the real test should be whether facts
disclosed in the affidavit filed seeking leave to defend prima facie show that the landlord would be disentitled from obtaining an
order of eviction and not whether at the end defence may fail. It is well to remember that when leave to defend is refused, serious
consequences of eviction shall follow and the party seeking leave is denied an opportunity to test the truth of the averments made in the eviction petition by cross-examination. It may also be noticed that even in cases where leave is granted provisions are made in this very Chapter for expeditious disposal of eviction petitions.”