The mandatory nature of the statutory period for filing the leave to defend application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the court's emphasis on the tenant's failure to comply with the statutory requirement.

JUDGMENT :

(Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.) :—

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the tenant challenging the order dated 01.09.2022 (‘the impugned eviction order’) passed by the Additional Rent Controller (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (Trial Court’) in CIS No. E-289/22, allowing the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘DRC Act’) with respect to a portion of Shop no. 413, Azad Market, Delhi - 110006, admeasuring 4 ft. × 7.5 ft (‘the tenanted premises’).

2. The Respondent, landlord, filed the eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises for himself and his sons for carrying on business.

3. The summons of the said petition were admittedly received by the Petitioner on 10.06.2022. After accounting for the Trial Court's summer vacation, the Petitioner, tenant, was obliged to mandatorily file his leave to defend on or before 01.07.2022; however, the Petitioner failed to file his leave to defend application within the statutory period.

4. Instead, on 11.07.2022, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘the CPC’) in the eviction proceedings, seeking a fresh copy of the eviction petition and in the interregnum praying for suspension of the limitation period for filing the leave to defend.

5. The Trial Court vide the impugned eviction order considered the Petitioner's application filed under Section 151 CPC and dismissed the same on merits, applying the ratio in the judgment of Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh (Dead) through LRs., (2010) 2 SCC 15. The Trial Court also held that since the tenant has not filed the leave to defend application within the statutory period of fifteen (15) days, and consequently, the impugned eviction order was passed in favour of the landlord.

Arguments of the Petitioner

6. Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, the learned counsel for the Petitioner states that, admittedly, summons of the eviction petition were issued to the Petitioner on 07.06.2022. He states that the said summons dated 07.06.2022 was received by the Petitioner on 10.06.2022, which was the last working day of the Trial Court before the start of the summer vacation.

7. He states that after the summons were served, the Petitioner had approached the concerned counsel (i.e., Mr. Ashutosh Lohia) to intimate about the said service/receipt of the summons. He states that, however, the concerned counsel was travelling during the summer vacations. He states that for the said reason, the Petitioner herein decided to wait for the return of the said counsel. He states that the concerned counsel returned on 04.07.2022.

8. He states that in the meantime, the period of fifteen (15) days from the service of summons of the eviction petition had expired on 01.07.2022, i.e., the date when Trial Court reopened after the summer vacation.

9. He states that after the perusal of the eviction petition, served on the Petitioner, the concerned counsel observed that the documents annexed with the eviction petition were illegible. He states that, accordingly, the concerned counsel served a letter dated 09.07.2022 to the Respondent herein, seeking a complete set/legible copies of the entire paper book of the eviction petition.

10. He states that, thereafter, the Petitioner filed the application dated 11.07.2022, under Section 151 of the CPC before the Trial Court seeking a fresh copy of the eviction petition. The Petitioner also prayed before the Trial Court to suspend the period of limitation for filing of the application for leave to defend, for want of complete set/legible copies of the eviction petition.

11. He further states that, the Petitioner herein, subsequently filed the leave to defend application dated 15.07.2022, before the Trial Court, i.e., with a delay of 14 days.

12. He states that the leave to defend application was filed by the Petitioner before the Trial Court, after carrying out the inspection of the cour