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.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
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
-300x169.webp)
-300x169.webp)
