IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld that abatement occurs automatically upon death, and the delay in filing for substitution of legal heirs can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC, 1908”) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners/Appellants-Tenants against the Judgment dated 14.02.2024 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “RCT”) in RCT ARCT/19/2023.

2. The impugned Judgment dated 14.02.2024 encompasses two Orders whereby, firstly, the Appeal of the Petitioners/Tenants filed against the Order dated 15.10.2019 vide which the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1963”) as well as Application under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC, 1908 filed by legal heirs of Shri B.K. Sobti (since deceased, represented through his legal heirs), seeking substitution of the legal heirs of Late Shri B.K. Sobti was allowed, and secondly, Order dated 26.08.2023 vide which the Application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of CPC, 1908 filed by the Petitioners herein seeking Review of the Order dated 15.10.2019, had been dismissed.

3. Briefly stated, the Eviction Petition bearing No. 215/2011 under Section 14(1)(a),(e) and (h) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1958”) was filed by Shri B.K. Sobti (landlord), father of the Respondents herein, against the Petitioners/Tenants on 21.05.2011.

4. Shri B.K. Sobti, the original landlord, died on 24.03.2015, during the pendency of the Petition when the matter had reached the stage of evidence of Petitioners/Tenants. The Application under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC, 1908 was eventually filed on 07.04.2016 by the legal heirs of Late Shri B.K. Sobti. Since the Application under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC, 1908 was filed beyond limitation, an Application under Section 5 of the Act, 1963 was filed on 20.01.2017 praying for condonation of delay in filing the Application under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC, 1908.

5. The above-mentioned two Applications were allowed by the learned Additional Rent Controller vide Order dated 15.10.2019. Thereafter, the Petitioners/Tenants filed the Application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of CPC, 1908 seeking review of the impugned Order dated 15.10.2019. However, the said Application under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, 1908 was dismissed vide Order dated 26.08.2023.

6. Aggrieved by the Orders dated 15.10.2019 and 26.08.2023, the Petitioner/Tenants preferred an Appeal before the RCT. The learned RCT vide Judgment dated 14.02.2024 observed that in fact, the Petitioners/Tenants had challenged the Order dated 15.10.2019 vide which the Application under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC, 1908 along with Application under Section 5 of the Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Application under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC, 1908 was allowed.

However, a subsequent Application under XLVII Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of CPC, 1908 was filed on 28.11.2019 by the Petitioners/Tenants seeking review of the Order dated 15.10.2019, only for the purpose of creating a fresh limitation period for filing an Appeal. The Appeal challenging the Order dated 15.10.2019 was held to be grossly barred by limitation.

7. Insofar as the Order dated 26.08.2023 dismissing the Review Application of the Petitioners/Tenants filed against the Order dated 15.10.2019 was concerned, it was observed that Additional Rent Controller had no power to review its own judgment. Even if it is presumed that it had the power to review its own Order/Judgment, there was no illegality found in the rejection of the Review Application. Consequently, the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners/Tenants before the RCT was dismissed vide Judgment dated 14.02.2024.

8. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 14.02.2024 of RCT, the present Revision Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Tenants.

9. The grounds of challenge are that the