IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in filing an application for leave to contest under the Delhi Rent Control Act must be beyond the tenant's control and a substantial case for consideration of the application must be made.

JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J. - By way of this petition, brought under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner/tenant has assailed order dated 01.05.2018 of the learned Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Delhi, whereby the belatedly filed application for leave to contest the proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was dismissed and eviction order with respect to shop no. 3828, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises") was passed. On service of notice, the present respondent/landlord entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows. On 23.02.2013, the present respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act against the present petitioner with respect to the subject premises. The summons issued in the prescribed format were served on the present petitioner through registered post on 06.03.2013 and through ordinary process on 18.04.2013. The present petitioner filed his application seeking leave to contest on 03.05.2013, claiming that the summons were served only on 18.04.2013. The present respondent filed reply to the said application, reaffirming service of summons on the present petitioner on 06.03.2013 through registered post. Subsequently, the present respondent obtained a certificate from the Post Master of the concerned Post Office to the effect that summons were served on the present petitioner on 06.03.2013. Therefore, the present respondent filed an application dated 14.03.2017 before the Additional Rent Controller seeking dismissal of the application for leave to contest as barred by time. By way of the impugned order the learned Additional Rent Controller allowed the said application dated 14.03.2017 of the present respondent and dismissed the application of the present petitioner for leave to contest.

3. Hence, the present petition.

4. During final arguments, learned counsel for petitioner/tenant took me through above record and contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law since the summons in the prescribed format were served for the first time on the petitioner on 18.04.2013 and leave to contest was filed on 03.05.2013 within time prescribed by law. It was argued on behalf of petitioner/tenant that merely on the basis of certificate issued by the Post Master concerned, service of summons through registered post on 06.03.2013 cannot be believed. Learned counsel for petitioner/tenant also argued that in view of law laid down by a division bench of this court in the case of Director, Directorate of Education & Anr vs Mohd Shamim & Ors, (2020) 266 DLT 1 this is a fit case for this court to condone the delay in filing the application for leave to contest and allow the application in that regard.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/landlord reaffirmed that summons in the prescribed format were duly served on the petitioner/tenant through registered post on 06.03.2013 as established from the certificate issued by the Post Master concerned in that regard, therefore, the application for leave to contest filed on 03.05.2013 was clearly beyond the time prescribed by law. Further, learned counsel for respondent/landlord also contended that the grounds taken by the petitioner/tenant in application for leave to contest are exactly the same as raised in another proceedings filed by the present respondent against another tenants Jagdish & Others, which grounds were rejected by a coordinate bench of this court in the case titled Akshma Devi vs Jagdish & Others, MANU/DE/2592/2016, so even on merits, the present petitioner has no case.

6. Thence, the core issue in the present case is as to whether the delay on the part of the present petitioner in filing the application for leave to contest on 03.05.2013, despite service of summons in prescribed format on 06.03.2013, can be con