$~J-

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 28.10.2025 Judgment delivered on: 18.12.2025 + RC.REV. 213/2018 & CM APPL. 42342/2025 MISS RUBINA SULTAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Naved Yar Khan, acting as next-

friend of petitioner via video-

conferencing.

Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Advocate (Amicus-Curiae) with Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate.

versus MOHD SHAFI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rambhakt Agrawal, Ms. Azka Ahmed and Mr. Ashu Sharma, Advocates for the respondents.

HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner (eviction petitioner before the learned Rent Controller) has approached this court in a revision petition under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 („DRC Act‟), challenging order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the learned Pilot Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CIS bearing No.1085/17, by which the learned Rent Controller has allowed an application filed by the respondents („tenants‟) under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 („CPC‟); and has “dismissed as rejected” the eviction petition filed on the ground of bona-fidé requirement. At the same time the learned Rent Controller has also dismissed the respondents‟ leave-to- defend application, for having been filed beyond the statutory period of 15 days prescribed in the Third Schedule read with section 25-B(4) of the DRC Act.

PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS

2. The petitioner is presently represented by her brother, Mr. Naved Yar Khan, who is purporting to act as her „next friend‟. However, as discussed in the present judgment, the eligibility and correctness of appointing Mr. Khan as the petitioner‟s next friend, is also a bone of contention between the parties.

3. It is the petitioner‟s submission that her circumstances are factually similar to those in Prithipal Singh vs. Satpal Singh,¹ in which case the Supreme Court held that when the leave-to-defend application is filed beyond the 15-day period after receipt of summons, an eviction order on the ground of bona-fidé requirement, must follow.

4. The petitioner submits that section 25-B of the DRC Act is a complete code and the procedure prescribed therein must be followed strictly while dealing with a petition seeking eviction on the ground of bona- fidé requirement. It is submitted that in such a circumstance, the learned Rent Controller has no discretion but to allow the eviction petition.

5. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner, that the learned Rent Controller has erroneously admitted and allowed the application filed by the respondents under Order VII Rule 11 CPC after their leave-to-

1 (2010) 2 SCC 15 defend application stood dismissed on the ground of delay. The petitioner also disputes the applicability of the judicial precedent referenced in the impugned order, viz., Ashok Kumar & Anr. vs. Ram Avtar Gupta,² submitting that that judgment does not apply to a case where a leave-to-defend application is time-barred.

6. The petitioner asserts that the view taken by the learned Rent Controller to the effect that the bona-fidé need cited in the eviction petition was not of the petitioner but of Mr. Naved Yar Khan (purporting to act as the petitioner‟s next friend) and the latter‟s sons, is also misplaced, since the bona-fidé requirement cited in the eviction petition was that of the petitioner herself.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner, who suffers from cerebral palsy, and is therefore a person with disability, is represented by her brother as „next friend‟; and that the appointment of Mr. Naved Yar Khan as „next friend‟ has been judicially recognized in certain legal proceedings, including before the Supreme Court.

8. It is further argued on behalf of the petitioner, that the learned Rent Controller has erroneously observed that no application was moved on behalf of the petitioner for appointing a „next friend‟, since the petitioner‟s brother had already been validly appointed as her „next friend‟ by orders of the Su