IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need for the summons to be duly served with a legible copy of the paper book and applied the dual test of reasons beyond control for the delay and the substantial case for consideration of the application for leave to contest.

JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J. - By way of this petition, brought under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the present petitioner/tenant has assailed order dated 17.08.2023 of the learned Additional Rent Controller Delhi, whereby application of the present petitioner for leave to contest the proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was dismissed on the ground that the application was filed beyond the time prescribed by law, and consequently eviction order in respect of the ground floor shop No.212, Gali Loharan, Ward VIII, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises") was passed against the present petitioner. On service of notice, the respondent/landlord entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows.

2.1 The present respondent, claiming himself to be a co-owner of the subject premises on the basis of a registered Will dated 15.10.2013 of his grandfather, filed against his tenant - the present petitioner, an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act on the ground that being unemployed with a family to support, he has to start business of artificial jewelry, for which he has bona fide requirement of the subject premises, as he has no reasonably suitable alternate accommodation.

2.2 On service of summons in the prescribed format, the present petitioner filed application for leave to contest, which was dismissed, as mentioned above, on the ground that the same was filed beyond time prescribed by law. That being so, it would be necessary to take a note of the relevant dates according to the trial court record, which are as follows. The said eviction petition was instituted by the present respondent on 21.11.2022 and summons in the format prescribed under the Act were served on the present petitioner on 05.01.2023. On the very next day, 06.01.2023 the present petitioner filed an application before the Additional Rent Controller for directions to the present respondent to supply legible copies of documents, which application was allowed by the Additional Rent Controller on 13.03.2023, thereby directing the present respondent to supply against acknowledgement within three days, legible paper book to the present petitioner, who in turn was directed to file application for leave to contest within stipulated period of time. Accordingly, a copy of paper book was supplied to the present petitioner on 16.03.2023. However, the leave to contest application was filed by the present petitioner on 11.04.2023, i.e. beyond the stipulated period of 15 days.

2.3 Placing reliance on the judicial pronouncement of this court in the case of Ramesh Tuli vs Sharda Kapur, 153 (2008) DLT 302, the learned Additional Rent Controller held that she had no power to condone the delay in filing the application for leave to contest and accordingly, the said application was dismissed and the impugned eviction order was passed.

2.4 In the impugned order, after traversing through the above mentioned dates, the Additional Rent Controller also observed on the basis of printouts of electronic records that by email dated 15.03.2023 scanned copy of documents was dispatched to the counsel for the present petitioner, which was followed by WhatsApp message dated 16.03.2023 informing the counsel for the present petitioner about the said email, with a request to send acknowledgement of receipt of the paper book; that in response WhatsApp, counsel for the present petitioner answered "OK", but no formal acknowledgement, as had been directed vide order dated 13.03.2023, was sent by counsel for the present petitioner; that according to the present petitioner, acknowledgment was not sent because copy of the Will supplied to him was not legible, so on 04.04.2023 and 05.04.2023, he again requested for supply of the same; that accordingly, the legible copies were supplied to counsel for