Logo

Delhi HC Says Two-Day Delay Without Valid Reason Cannot Stop Eviction Order

CB News Desk
Add Court Book as a preferred source on Google

The Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order, ruling that a tenant's two-day delay in filing a leave to defend application was not justified by reasons beyond their control. - Malkeet Singh v. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal

Delhi HC Says Two-Day Delay Without Valid Reason Cannot Stop Eviction Order

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a revision petition challenging an eviction order after holding that a tenant failed to justify a two-day delay in filing an application seeking leave to defend. The Court ruled that a short delay alone is not enough unless the tenant proves it occurred due to circumstances beyond their control.

Background of the Case

The petition was filed under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, challenging an order of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), which had refused to take the tenant's leave to defend application on record because it was filed two days beyond the statutory deadline.

Before the High Court, the tenant argued that the delay occurred while collecting and tracing documents required for filing the application. It was also contended that the High Court, unlike the Rent Controller, could exercise revisional powers in exceptional cases.

Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar examined the legal position and relied on an earlier Division Bench ruling governing the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

Court Book subscription: bare acts, legal drafts, court judgments and ad-free legal news, plans from ₹30/month

The Court observed,

“The tenant must, firstly, demonstrate that he was prevented, for reasons beyond his control, from filing the Application within the prescribed period and, secondly, make out a substantial case warranting consideration of the Application seeking leave to defend.”

The bench found that the explanation of spending time tracing documents did not amount to a circumstance beyond the tenant's control. It noted that no material had been produced to establish an unavoidable reason for missing the statutory deadline. Since the first requirement of the legal test was not satisfied, the Court held there was no need to examine whether the tenant had a substantial defence.

Finding no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, the Delhi High Court dismissed the revision petition along with the pending applications, leaving the eviction order undisturbed.

Case Details

Case Title: Malkeet Singh v. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal

Case Number: RC.REV. 148/2026

Judge: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Decision Date: 09 July 2026

PDF
Download Order
Free access
Open PDF

Take CourtBook Everywhere

Access your account on the go with our mobile app.

Get it on Google PlayDownload on the App Store
Join the Court Book WhatsApp channel for latest judgments, notifications, legal news and exam updates