1. Eviction petition under Delhi Rent Control Act — Tenant sought to place additional documents after filing leave to defend application. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 19999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Ajay Digpaul, J
MANPREET SINGH – Appellant
Versus
PARMOD KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. – Respondent
CM(M)-1637/2026
Important Points
Additional documents cannot be introduced after the statutory period for leave to defend under Section 25-B of the DRC Act unless a satisfactory, specific explanation for the delay is provided and the documents establish a triable issue, rather than merely supplementing existing pleas.
Subject
Property Law - Landlord-Tenant Disputes
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 25-B - Application for leave to defend - Production of additional documents - Inherent powers of court under Section 151 CPC - Power to take subsequent material on record is discretionary and intended to advance ends of justice, but cannot be used to circumvent statutory procedure prescribed for disclosing defence within the statutory period. Petitioner must furnish a satisfactory explanation for non-production of documents at the appropriate stage and demonstrate that documents are necessary for determination of triable issue. Mere assertion that documents became available subsequently without specific details is insufficient (Paras 16, 18, 23, 24).
(B) Eviction Petition - Misjoinder/Non-joinder of parties - Landlord is not obliged to implead every single legal heir of a deceased tenant; impleading the heir in occupation is sufficient to maintain an eviction petition as legal heirs inherit tenancy as joint tenants. Documentation establishing existence of other legal heirs does not constitute a triable issue (Paras 19, 20).
(C) Leave to Defend - Scope of additional material - Documents that merely substantiate pleas already raised in the application for leave to defend do not constitute subsequent developments and cannot be introduced belatedly to improve or supplement the grounds of defence (Paras 21, 22, 26).
Facts of the case:
An eviction petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The tenant's legal representative filed an application for leave to defend. Subsequently, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed seeking to place on record identity documents of other legal heirs, photographs of the premises, and electoral rolls to support pleas regarding alternative accommodation and the physical description of the premises. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, leading to the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide a specific and satisfactory explanation for the delay in producing the documents. Further, the documents sought to be introduced merely supported existing pleas and did not disclose any new triable issue, particularly regarding the joinder of parties.
Issues: Whether a party can be permitted to introduce additional documents after the filing of the application for leave to defend and rejoinder, using the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the provided general explanation for the delayed production of documents was insufficient to override the statutory procedure of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Since the documents merely substantiated existing pleas and did not reveal a triable issue, the exercise of discretion under Section 151 CPC to admit them was not warranted.
Result: Petition dismissed.
(B) Eviction Petition - Misjoinder/Non-joinder of parties - Landlord is not obliged to implead every single legal heir of a deceased tenant; impleading the heir in occupation is sufficient to maintain an eviction petition as legal heirs inherit tenancy as joint tenants. Documentation establishing existence of other legal heirs does not constitute a triable issue (Paras 19, 20).
(C) Leave to Defend - Scope of additional material - Documents that merely substantiate pleas already raised in the application for leave to defend do not constitute subsequent developments and cannot be introduced belatedly to improve or supplement the grounds of defence (Paras 21, 22, 26).
Facts of the case:
An eviction petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The tenant's legal representative filed an application for leave to defend. Subsequently, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed seeking to place on record identity documents of other legal heirs, photographs of the premises, and electoral rolls to support pleas regarding alternative accommodation and the physical description of the premises. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, leading to the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide a specific and satisfactory explanation for the delay in producing the documents. Further, the documents sought to be introduced merely supported existing pleas and did not disclose any new triable issue, particularly regarding the joinder of parties.
Issues: Whether a party can be permitted to introduce additional documents after the filing of the application for leave to defend and rejoinder, using the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the provided general explanation for the delayed production of documents was insufficient to override the statutory procedure of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Since the documents merely substantiated existing pleas and did not reveal a triable issue, the exercise of discretion under Section 151 CPC to admit them was not warranted.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
- civil procedure
-
rent control
-
delhi rent control act 1958
- eviction proceedings
- tenant and landlord
-
constitutional law
- jurisdiction
-
property law
- tenancy
-
delhi rent control act 1958
Advocates:
For the Appellants/ Petitioners: Gagandeep Singh, Yash Chopra
For the Respondents: Shalini Kapoor, Divyanshi Saxena, Udit Bhatiani
For the Appellants/ Petitioners: Gagandeep Singh, Yash Chopra
For the Respondents: Shalini Kapoor, Divyanshi Saxena, Udit Bhatiani
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued documents were relevant; respondent argued strict adherence to 15-day period under Section 25-B for leave to defend. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. Petitioner failed to explain delayed production; documents were available earlier and do not disclose triable issues. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
4. Section 151 CPC cannot circumvent statutory procedure under Section 25-B DRC Act for timely disclosure of defence. (Para 16 , 23 , 27 )
5. Petition dismissed; no jurisdictional error in ARC's order rejecting application under Section 151 CPC. (Para 29 , 30 )
6. Can a tenant introduce additional documents after filing leave to defend under Section 25-B DRC Act?
Generally no, without satisfactory explanation for delayed production; the statutory 15-day period for disclosing defence grounds is inflexible. (Para 16 , 18 , 23 )
7. Is the 15-day period for leave to defend under Section 25-B DRC Act inflexible?
Yes; the period is inflexible, and courts must not permit successive opportunities to improve or supplement grounds already disclosed. (Para 5 , 16 , 26 )
8. Must a landlord implead all legal heirs of a deceased tenant in an eviction petition?
No; it is sufficient to implead the heir in occupation, as legal heirs inherit tenancy as joint tenants. (Para 19 , 20 )
9. Does absence of prejudice to the respondent justify allowing late filing of documents under Section 25-B DRC Act?
No; absence of prejudice cannot override the statutory procedure governing a petition under Section 25-B DRC Act. (Para 27 )
JUDGMENT
%
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 06.07.2026 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, (hereinafter "ARC") in RC ARC No. 690/2025, titled "Pramod Kumar Gupta v. Manpreet Singh", whereby the learned ARC dismissed petitioner's application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter "CPC"), seeking to place additional documents on record.
2. Succinctly put, the brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is one of the legal representatives of the original tenant, late Amarjeet Singh, in respect of Shop bearing No. 5175, forming part of property bearing Nos. 5174-5177, Basant Road, Paharganj, New Delhi, (hereinafter "said premise"). Respondent no. 1 instituted an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter "DRC Act"), being RC ARC No. 690/2025, in respect of the said premises.
3. Upon service of the summons, the petitioner entered appearance and filed an application for leave to defend on 30.03.2026. Respondent no. 1 filed a reply thereto, followed by a rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner.
4. The matter was thereafter listed for arguments on the application for leave to defend. In the meantime, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking to place on record certain additional facts and documents. The details of the additional documents which were sought to be placed on record by the petitioner are as under :
"a) Passport and Voter ID Card of Smt. Rajpreet Kaur, real sister of respondent No. 1.
b) Aadhaar Card, Passport and Voter ID card of Late Smt. Rajdeep Kaur, real sister of respondent No.1, Manpreet Singh.
c) Death certificate of Rajdeep Kaur
d) Passports of the LR's of Late Smt. Rajdeep Kaur.
e) Original photographs of Mezzanine Floor, Shop bearing No. 5175, Basant Road, Paharganj, New Delhi.
f) Photographs of Shop bearing No. 5176, Basant Road, Paharganj, New Delhi. (Owned by petitioner, however kept closed)
g) The Copy of the electoral roll 2020 and electoral roll 2002, of petitioner as well as his family members showing their address as 5174, Shyam Lal building, Paharganj, New Delhi."
5. The said application was opposed and, after hearing the parties, came to be dismissed by the learned ARC vide order dated 06.07.2026. The operative portion of the order impugned is reproduced hereinbelow:
"5. It is trite to state that the ordinary rule of judiciary procedure is that the statutory time period of 15 days for filing of leave to defend application is inflexible and whatever has to be stated in the leave to defend application with respect to the facts and events, which have happened prior to 15 days period must be stated in the leave to defend application itself and not by way of subsequent affidavits or documents. Reliance in regard is placed upon the observation of the Apex Court in Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh , (2010) 2 SCC 15.
6. In the present case, the application for leave to defend was filed before the court on 30.03.2026. Now the applicant/respondent wishes to place on record original photographs of shops no. 5175 & 5176 belonging to the petitioner alongwith the details of other LRs and the copy of electoral rolls pertaining to the address of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that these documents were available with the respondent at the time of filing of application for leave to defend and there are latches on the part of respondent. As far as the documents filed alongwith the application under section 151 CPC is concerned, the said documents were in the knowledge of the respondent prior to the date of filing of the leave to defend application. Therefore, pleadings in this regard should have been made in the leave to defend application itself.
7. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Madhu Gupta Vs. Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd, 184 (2011) DLT 103 wherein it was observed that:-
"No amen
