The court emphasized the importance of timely filing of applications seeking leave to defend and the requirement for issues raised to give rise to a triable issue in eviction cases.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed by the tenant assailing the eviction order dated 21.10.2021, passed by Additional Rent Controller (West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (`Trial Court') in ARC No. 64/2020, whereby the tenant's application seeking leave to defend was not considered for being time barred.

2. The impugned eviction order has been passed in favour of the Respondent, landlord, qua tenanted premises being one room, ad-measuring 9'6" X 8'3", situated at ground floor, forming part of Property No. 2131, Gali No. 1, Prem Nagar, Near Delhi Milk Scheme, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110018 (`tenanted premises'), shown in red colour in the site plan.

3. The Petitioner, tenant, is aggrieved by the non-consideration of his application seeking leave to defend, which admittedly was filed on 10.03.2021 i.e., after 26 days from the service of the eviction petition.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the summons in the eviction petition were served on the Petitioner's son, on 12.02.2021. He states that since the wife of the Petitioner was then unwell, it took him some time to engage a lawyer for drawing up an application seeking leave to defend. He states that however, the said facts of hardships were not taken into consideration by the Trial Court while passing its impugned eviction order.

5. He states that after the passing of the impugned eviction order, the Petitioner herein engaged advocates namely Mr. Satish Kumar (D/2995/2015) and Mr. Rajesh Kumar (D/2373/2011) to file a revision petition before this Court, assailing the said order. He states that the Petitioner took steps to execute documents for facilitating filing of the revision petition and that the Petitioner verily believed that the same had been filed and is pending consideration.

6. He states that, in fact, when the execution proceedings were filed the said advocates i.e., Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate, appeared before the executing Court and stated that a revision petition pending adjudication before the High Court.

7. He states that in these circumstances the Petitioner also believed the statement made by the said advocates, as he had also executed an affidavit and vakalatnama.

8. He states however, the Petitioner has now learnt in December, 2022, that the said advocates had not filed any revision petition and therefore, the statement made before the executing Court was incorrect. He states that thereafter the Petitioner's wife passed away due to illness and he therefore, could not immediately engage a lawyer.

9. He states that the aforesaid circumstances led to this delay of 1 year and 3 months in filing the present petition, belatedly on 24.01.2023. He states that the Petitioner was constrained to engage a new counsel and he prays for condonation of delay on the ground of hardship.

10. He states that in the leave to defend the Petitioner has raised primarily two triable issues which reads as under and therefore, he is entitled to grant of leave to defend:

a. That the site plan filed by the landlord is incorrect; and

b. That he does not admit that the landlord herein is absolute owner of the premises and infact, he is only the co-owner of the premises.

11. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent, landlord, states that the Petitioner had not filed any application seeking condonation of the admitted delay of eleven (11) days before the Trial Court and, therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any error in not considering the application seeking leave to defend. He states even otherwise the Trial Court could not have condoned the delay of even a single day in view of the law settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh (Dead) through its LRs., (2010) 2 SCC 15.

12. He furthers states that the argument that the site plan filed with the eviction petition is wrong cannot be accepted as no other site plan has been placed on record by the tenant with his leave to def