The judgment emphasizes the need for strict adherence to procedural requirements under the DRC Act and the specific circumstances under which different sections of the Act apply.

Mukta Gupta, J.:-- (Oral)

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 7th November, 2013 whereby the leave to defend application of the petitioner in an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act by the respondent was dismissed being beyond the period prescribed, the petitioner prefers the present petition.

2. The Respondent filed the eviction petition before the learned ARC under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act stating that the Respondent was a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, Shri Vinod Nair is the Principal Officer and Attorney of the Respondent Company and is duly authorized to sign, verify and institute the eviction petition. It is further stated that Shop No. 29, 9062, Ram Bagh, Azad Market, Delhi-110006 had been let out to the Petitioner for commercial purposes from where the Petitioner was carrying his business activity. It was stated that the Respondent Company was incurring losses for a long time and thus to revamp its business, the Respondent Company requires place for building proper infrastructure and office to be used by its employees as per the plan finalized. The Respondent Company is in the process of hiring more than 40 new employees and therefore it has to build up a new and bigger office. The Respondent Company requires the said shop bona fidely for its own use and for the use of its employees and Respondent Company does not have any alterative or suitable non-residential premises. The Respondent Company is presently accommodating in shop No. 21 of the said complex. It is further stated that the Respondent Company has initiated similar process of eviction against the other ten tenants in various shops in the complex.

3. Summons in the present eviction petition were served upon the authorized representative of the petitioner on 16th July, 2013 and the leave to defend application was filed by the petitioner before the learned ARC only on 30th August, 2013. Thus admittedly there was a delay of 27 days in filing the leave to defend application.

4. In Prithipal Singh (Dead) through LRs, v. Satpal Singh, 2010 (2) SCC 15 the Supreme Court held:

“16. From a careful perusal of Sub-section (4) of Section 25-B of the Rent Act, it would be clearly evident that the tenant shall not be permitted to contest the prayer for eviction unless he files an affidavit before the Controller stating the ground on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller. This Section also clearly indicates that in default of his appearance in compliance with the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the eviction proceeding shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the landlord shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground mentioned in the eviction petition. At this stage, we may also note that in Sub-section (4) of Section 25-B of the Rent Act read with Third Schedule, it has been made clear by the Legislature that if the summons of the proceeding is received by the tenant, he has to appear and ask for leave to contest the eviction proceeding within 15 days from the date of service of notice upon the tenant and if he fails to do so, automatically, an order of eviction in favour of the landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement shall be made.”

5. Thus noting the dominant object of the amending Act so as to provide a speedy, expeditious and effective remedy for a class of landlords contemplated by Sections 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act and for avoiding unusual dilatory process, it was held that Section 25-B (1) being a special provision and every application on the ground of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act is required to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified under Section 25-B(1) of the DRC Act. Since no power has been conferred on the Controller apart from Rule 23 which is a general rule, the Controller is required to be guided with the provisions of Section 25-B DRC Act and thus there was no power wit