The failure to file an Application for Leave to Defend within the statutory period allowed the court to consider the Petitioner/landlord's averments in the Eviction Petition as true and correct, leading to the grant of an Eviction Order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

Tara Vitasta Ganju, J. (Oral)

1. None appears on behalf of the Respondent/tenant despite service being effected on the Respondent/tenant.

2. A perusal of the record shows that the order dated 13.10.2022 had directed that the matter would be taken up for final disposal on the next date of hearing even if there is no appearance on behalf of the Respondent/tenant.

3. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/landlord impugning the order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the learned ARC-I, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi wherein the Application seeking Leave to Defend filed by the Respondent/tenant was allowed [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"] qua shop no. 7, in property bearing no. 1961, Katra Lachhu Singh, Fountain, Bhagirath Place, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 [hereinafter referred to as "demised premises"].

4. The grievance of the Petitioner/landlord is that the Application for Leave to Defend was taken on record and considered by the learned ARC despite the same being filed beyond the statutory period of 15 days as is prescribed under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"].

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/landlord submits that the Respondent/tenant was served by the Registered Post A.D. as well by ordinary process. In this regard, he seeks to place reliance on the Acknowledgement Due Card which is appended to page 56 of the case file and also to PDF page 312 of the Trial Court Record showing the delivery stamp as `19.10.2012'.

5.1. Reliance is placed on the averments made by the Respondent/tenant in his Application for Leave to Defend wherein it is stated that the summons were received by the brother of the Respondent/tenant.

5.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/landlord further submits that Application for Leave to Defend was to be filed by the Respondent/tenant within 15 days of the date of service of summons. However, the same was filed on 16.11.2012 which is beyond the statutory period.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/landlord submits that in view of the fact that the summons were received on 19.10.2012, the Application for Leave to Defend, if any, could have only been filed latest by 02.11.2012 by the Respondent/tenant. However, the Impugned Order does not consider this delay in filing of the Application for Leave to Defend and records as follows:

"5. Notice of the petition was served upon the respondent. The respondent filed an application seeking leave to defend. Respondent pointed out that the petitioner has alternative suitable accommodation available with him. It was further stated that the petitioner being an old man cannot carry out any active business. It was pleaded that the petitioner has not disclosed the type of business he wishes to do. The respondent has disputed the claim of the petitioner that he requires the tenanted premises bonafidely and that he does not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation. The respondent stated that the petitioner already has sufficient income from a guest house that he is running....."

[Emphasis supplied]

6.1. It is submitted that the Impugned Order further takes into account the contentions as set forth by the Respondent/tenant in his Application for Leave to Defend and states that triable issues have been raised by the Respondent/tenant to entitle him to contest the Eviction Petition filed by the Petitioner/landlord.

7. This Court by its order dated 30.05.2019 had passed interim directions directing that the proceedings before the learned ARC shall remain stayed.

8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner/landlord and reviewed the case file.

9. A perusal of the Eviction Petition filed as Annexure-A [appended at page 36 of the case file] shows that the Petitioner/landlord had let out the demised premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 110/- p