$~13 * IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 325/2025 SARDAR PRITPAL SINGH & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Akash Arora & Mr. S. Khan, Advs. versus MAHENDRA KUMAR BHARDWAJ .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 09.02.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 66408/2025 (Exemption) & CM APPL. 66405/2025 (Exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of.

CM APPL. 66407/2025 (Delay)

3. The present application under Section 151 of the CPC seeks condonation of delay of 3 days in re-filing the present petition.

4.In view of the averments made, the application is allowed and disposed of.

Delay of 3 days in re-filing the present petition is hereby condoned.

RC.REV. 325/2025 & CM APPL. 66406/2025 (Stay)

5.By way of present petition under Section 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 23.04.2025 passed learned ACJ-cum- CCJ-cum-ARC, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in RC ARC 62/2023 whereby the application seeking leave to defend was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

6.It is the case of the petitioners that there was a delay of one day in filing the application seeking leave to defend. It is pointed out that the petitioners satisfy the dual test as laid down by the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench in “Director Directorate of Education &Anr. v. Mohd. Shamim & Ors.” judgment dated29.11.2019. An affidavit dated 19.11.2025 has been placed on record along with documents demonstrating that the petitioners are covered by the aforesaid judgment. It is pointed out that on receiving the summons of the eviction petition, they engaged a counsel; however, the said counsel was not aware of the limitation period of filing leave to defend application and then, they re-engaged a counsel, who with best efforts could file the same one day after the expiry of period of 15 days before the learned ARC. The whatsapp chat exchanged between the petitioners and their earlier advocate has been placed on record along with the affidavit. It is further submitted that as far as the second test is concerned, it is stated that the petitioners had placed substantial defence to oppose the eviction petition on the following grounds:-

“a. The Respondent has approached the Court ofLd. ACJ-CUM- CCJ-CUM-ARC, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi with unclean hands, by suppressing material facts.

b. The Petitioners had not rented the said premises but had rather purchased the said premises from Smt. Kamla Devi, the original owner of the said premises for a Pagri of Rs. 5 Lakhs by way of Agreement to Lease which clearly states that the Agreement was for an indefinite period.

c. Since the attachment of the said premises by MCD due to non- payment of taxes in 1998, the rent for the said premises had been paid to MCD directly, in terms of the Order dated 25 March 1998.

d.Further,the Respondent herein is not at all related to the real owner of the said premises, Smt. Kamla Devi as he has never had any interaction with him and ever since the death of Smt. Kamla Devi never had any person come forth, despite an investigation by the police officials, to claim rightful ownership of the said premises.”

7.On the petitioners taking necessary steps, issue notice to the respondent through all permissible modes, returnable for the next date of hearing.

8. Renotify on 23.07.2026.

9. In case the respondent files the execution proceedings, the petitioners will be at liberty toapproachthisCourtbywayofanappropriateapplication.

AMIT SHARMA, J FEBRUARY 9, 2026/nk