* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement delivered on: 30.06.2025 + RC.REV. 58/2023 & CM APPL.9101/2023 MR IFTIKHAR AHMAD AND ANR .....Petitioners versus MOHD ATIQ AND OTHERS .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case For the Petitioners : Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv.

For the Respondents : None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘DRC Act’) seeking quashing and setting aside of order dated 28.09.2022 (‘impugned order’) passed by the learned ACR 01, Central District, Delhi (‘Rent Controller’) in RC ARC No. 463/2019 (‘Eviction Petition’) for eviction of premises at 1^st Floor, consisting of one room with open courtyard in property bearing no. 4235, Gali Barna Wali, Ward XIV, Sadar Bazar, Delhi- 110006 (‘tenanted premises’).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Vide impugned order, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application for leave to defend along with an application for condonation of delay for one single day in filing leave to defend to the Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act on the ground of bonafide Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEELAM requirement of the Respondents.

3. The Petitioners have sought setting aside of the impugned order on the ground that the learned Rent Controller erred in dismissing the application for leave to defend by not condoning the delay of one day in filing the same. The Eviction Petition was served on the Petitioners on 11.07.2019 and the leave to defend as per the provisions of Section 25B of the DRC Act had to be filed within fifteen (15) days of the service. Accordingly, the last date for filing leave to defend was 26.07.2019. It is the case of the Petitioners that immediately upon service of the notice of the Eviction Petition, the Petitioners approached the Central District Legal Service Authority (‘DLSA’). The DLSA assigned a counsel and leave to defend was prepared and attested on 26.07.2019. However, the learned counsel for the Petitioners could reach the Rent Controller at about 04:30 PM on 26.07.2019, by which time the learned Rent Controller had left and the filing could not be done.

4. Accordingly, on 27.07.2019, the Petitioners filed the leave to defend along with an application seeking condonation of one day delay. The application for condonation of delay was supported by the affidavits of the Petitioners.

5. The Respondents filed reply for application to the leave to defend on 12.02.2020 denying the contents of the application for leave to defend. The learned Rent Controller vide the impugned order rejected the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the learned Rent Controller did not have power to condone the delay in filing the leave to defend application under any circumstances. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to defend was dismissed. Even though, the application for leave to defend was dismissed, Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEELAM the learned Rent Controller observed that all the ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act for bonafide requirement of the Respondents for the tenanted premises are required to be satisfied. The learned Rent Controller in the impugned order recorded that the Respondents have averred in the Eviction Petition that the Respondents did not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation for the residence of their family. Since, the Petitioners had failed to file leave to defend within fifteen (15) days, the Petitioners were deemed to have admitted the ownership of the Respondents and the relationship and the landlord between the Respondents and the Petitioners. It was further held that the Petitioners deemed to have admitted that the Respondents required the tenanted premises bonafide for their residential needs and they did not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation for this purpose. Accordingly, the Eviction Petiti