Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia has held that the delay of one day in filing an application for leave to defend under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 can be condoned if the tenant satisfies the dual test laid down in precedent. In doing so, the Court quashed the eviction order previously passed by the Rent Controller and allowed the tenant’s petition, restoring the matter for further proceedings. The Court directed that the delay in filing leave to defend was to be condoned as the tenant was found to be prevented by reasons beyond their control, and the application for leave to defend raised substantial triable issues. Consequently, the eviction order based on deemed admission was declared invalid, and the case was remanded for proper adjudication by the Rent Controller.

The petition was filed under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking to quash and set aside the eviction order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller-01, Central District, Delhi, in RC ARC No. 463/2019. The eviction proceedings pertained to the tenanted premises on the first floor consisting of one room with open courtyard in property no. 4235, Gali Barna Wali, Ward XIV, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006.

Also Read: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict | Says ‘Last Seen Together Is A Weak Link’ And ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ | Slams Lower Courts For Conviction Without Conclusive Evidence

The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application for leave to defend as well as the application for condonation of one day’s delay in filing the same. The eviction petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act on the ground of bona fide requirement. As per the case of the Petitioners, the eviction petition was served upon them on 11.07.2019, making 26.07.2019 the last date to file the leave to defend under the 15-day limit prescribed.

The Petitioners claimed that immediately after service, they approached the Central District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), which assigned counsel. The leave to defend was prepared and attested on 26.07.2019. However, by the time the Petitioners’ counsel reached the Rent Controller’s Court at around 4:30 PM, the Court had closed for the day.

The very next day, i.e., on 27.07.2019, the Petitioners filed the leave to defend along with an application seeking condonation of one-day delay. The application was supported by affidavits from the Petitioners. The Respondents filed a reply to the application on 12.02.2020, denying its contents. The learned Rent Controller rejected the application for condonation of delay, holding that it had no power to condone delay under any circumstances, and hence dismissed the leave to defend.

Although the application was dismissed, the Rent Controller went on to observe that all elements of Section 14(1)(e) were satisfied and deemed that the Petitioners had admitted the Respondents’ ownership and the landlord-tenant relationship. It was also deemed that the Respondents had a bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises, and no reasonably suitable accommodation was available to them. The eviction order was accordingly passed.

Aggrieved, the Petitioners moved the High Court. On 24.02.2023, the Court issued notice to the Respondents and directed the Petitioners to obtain a letter from the DLSA-appointed counsel explaining the time taken from 15.07.2019 to 27.07.2019. The DLSA submitted a letter with a supporting affidavit dated 18.03.2023.

On 21.11.2023, the Court observed that the explanation from counsel was unsatisfactory and reflected a lack of awareness of the law settled in Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh (2010) 2 SCC 15, where it was held that the Rent Controller has no power to condone delay in filing leave to defend.

However, Petitioners cited the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Director, Directorate of Education & Anr. v. Mohd. Shamim & Ors. (2019 SCC OnLine Del 11490), which laid down a dual test for the High Court to condone such delay:

1. The tenant must show that he was prevented by reasons beyond his control from filing the application within time.
2. The tenant must also show a substantial case in the leave to defend.

The Petitioners contended that they met both criteria. The matter was listed for final hearing on 11.01.2024. On 11.02.2025, the Respondents remained unrepresented. A fresh default notice was issued. The Court reiterated the twofold test from Directorate of Education and acknowledged its own power to condone delay if the test is satisfied. On 26.05.2025, after giving multiple opportunities, and hearing the Petitioners’ submissions, the judgment was reserved.

The Petitioners submitted that they were vigilant and acted immediately. Although the delay was only one day, it occurred despite timely preparation and attestation of the leave to defend. The learned counsel representing the Petitioners argued that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond the Petitioners’ control. Moreover, the application raised several triable issues including:

• Allegation of suppression of facts and incorrect site plan by the Respondents.

• Dispute over ownership as not all legal heirs of the original landlord Late Azimuddin were made parties.

• Claim that the sale deed was forged and fabricated.

• Assertion that the Respondents had sufficient alternative accommodation.

The Petitioners contended that these issues required adjudication and hence satisfied the second prong of the dual test.

The Court began by identifying the questions to be determined: "Whether the Petitioners were prevented by reasons beyond their control from applying for leave to defend within the prescribed time; and Whether the Petitioners had made out a substantial case of consideration in the application for leave to defend."

On the first question, the Court recorded: "From the perusal of the records and the letter submitted by the learned counsel appointed by DLSA before the learned Rent Controller and the report dated 18.03.2023 submitted by the DLSA pursuant to order dated 24.02.2023 passed by this Court... the following facts emerge:"

The Court listed the timeline: "The service of the notice issued by the learned Rent Controller of the Eviction Petition was completed on 11.07.2019."

"The DLSA appointed the learned counsel to represent the Petitioners on 15.07.2019. The Petitioners had approached the learned counsel the same day and supplied the summons along with the copy of the Eviction Petition."

"The learned counsel instructed the Petitioners to return after three days with details. On doing so, the Petitioners informed that collection of facts was delayed due to the long tenancy history and that prior landlords had migrated post-partition."

"The application for leave to defend was finalized on 26.07.2019 and attested before 4:00 PM. The advance copy was posted to the Respondents."

"The Petitioners and counsel reached the Rent Controller's court around 4:35 PM, but the Court had closed. The Reader refused to accept the filing and asked them to return the next day."

"On 27.07.2019, the Petitioners returned at 10:00 AM. The Reader, upon instructions, asked for a condonation application to be filed. The same was done on that day."

"An affidavit dated 18.03.2023 from the learned counsel affirmed that the facts stated above were true and correct to the best of the knowledge."

On these facts, the Court concluded: "It is evident that the application for leave to defend was prepared and attested on 26.07.2019 and the attempt was made to file the same on the very same day. However, due to slight delay in reaching the Court of learned Rent Controller, the same could not be filed in time."

"This shows that the Petitioners were vigilant... and took all steps to bring the application for leave to defend on record."

Accordingly, the first test was held satisfied.

On the second question, the Court recorded: "The Petitioners have submitted that there are seven (7) portions of one room along with courtyard etc. constructed in the tenanted premises and there are three (3) empty portions... Further, the Respondents had filed the wrong site plan."

"The leave to defend mentions that there was no cause of action of bonafide requirements as the Eviction Petition did not show how the Respondents were utilizing the remaining portion... consisting of three (3) floors that were unoccupied."

"The Respondents had suppressed material facts... as all the legal heirs of Late Azimuddin were not made party to the Eviction Petition."

"The Respondents had filed a forged and fabricated sale deed and also had failed to show the ownership... Hence, there was no landlord and tenant relationship."

The Court concluded: "It is clear that substantial issues arise for determination before the learned Rent Controller... However, the impugned order proceeds on the basis that there was a deemed admission... due to failure to file leave to defend on time."

"Accordingly, the second test as laid down in Directorate of Education (supra) has also been fulfilled in the facts of the present case."

Also Read: This Is Not A Fit Case For Transfer | Gauhati High Court Dismisses Plea To Shift Rs 150 Crore NBFC Fraud Case | Trial To Continue In Mizoram

The Court issued the following direction: "Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the delay of one (1) day in filing the leave to defend is hereby condoned."

"The impugned order is quashed and set aside."

"Accordingly, the present Petition is allowed."

"No orders as to costs."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Ms. Aditi Gupta, Advocate

Case Title: Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad and Anr. versus Mohd Atiq and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5043

Case Number: RC.REV. 58/2023

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia