Failure to file an application seeking leave to defend within the statutory period under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, results in the deemed admission of the landlord's statement in the eviction proceedings, entitling the landlord to an order for eviction.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner, tenant assailing the eviction order dated 24.09.2022 ('impugned eviction order') passed by the Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ('the Trial Court') with respect to shop bearing private No. 1, Ground floor, for the building bearing Municipal No. 1049/50, Kucha Natwan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi- 110006 ('the tenanted premises'), passed in favour of the Respondent, landlord.

2. The Trial Court has recorded in the impugned eviction order that the tenant failed to file an application seeking leave to defend within the statutory period prescribed under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ('the DRC Act'), even after being duly served with the notice of the eviction petition and thereby directed the eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, tenant states that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the copy of the eviction petition served on the tenant on 10.05.2022, contained few illegible pages. He states that on account of the said illegible pages the tenant was unable to file his leave to defend within 15 days.

3.1. He states that the finding of the Trial Court that the tenant was served by speed post on 21.09.2021 is incorrect and the affidavit of service filed by the landlord alleging service is wrong.

4. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent, landlord states that it is a matter of record that the tenant herein after due service of notice, appeared before the Trial Court on 10.05.2022. The proceedings of Trial Court on 10.05.2022 record that a copy of eviction petition was provided to the tenant from the judicial record and he was granted liberty to file his leave to defend within the prescribed period of limitation, i.e., 15 days.

4.1. He states that however the tenant failed to file his application seeking leave to defend on the adjourned date of hearing i.e., 05.08.2022 and therefore the right of the tenant to file to leave to defend stood closed by operation of law.

4.2. He states that belatedly on 15.09.2022, the tenant filed an application alleging that certain pages of the eviction petition were not legible. He states that the Trial Court has appropriately dealt with the said application and not found any merit in the same. He states that the Trial Court has acted in accordance with law in passing the eviction order, as admittedly no application seeking leave to defend was filed before the Trial Court.

4.3. He states that in fact the tenanted premises are lying locked and the tenant has not been using the said premises for several years now. He states that the present petition is therefore an abuse of process, filed for oblique motives and the tenant has no need or requirement of the tenanted premises.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

6. The eviction petition was filed by the landlord before the Trial Court under Section 14(1) (e) the DRC Act on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for opening a showroom and commencing a business of garments, lehengas, sarees. It is stated in the eviction petition that the tenanted premises is located in a commercial market, which is ideal for commencing the said business.

7. The impugned eviction order was passed by the Trial Court after recording that the tenant failed to file an application seeking leave to defend despite having entered appearance on 05.05.2022, 10.05.2022, 05.08.2022 and 24.09.2022.

8. At the outset, it is noted that no leave to defend has been filed by the tenant either before the Trial Court or even along with the present revision petition. This Court notes that thus, there has been abject failure on behalf of the tenant in diligently defending the eviction proceedings.

9. It is admitted that the tenant herein was provided a copy of the eviction petition from the judicial record on 10.05.2022 and gran