The Delhi High Court has ruled that its revisional jurisdiction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be exercised to excuse a delay in filing a leave to defend application unless the tenant satisfies a strict cumulative dual test. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a revision petition filed by a tenant, clarifying that the court cannot condone such delays if the tenant fails to demonstrate that they were prevented from filing on time due to reasons entirely beyond their control.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Malkeet Singh, filed a revision petition under Section 25B(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) to challenge an order dated April 4, 2026. This order was passed by Sh. Gaurav Goyal, ARC-1, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in an eviction proceeding (RC ARC 221/2025). The Additional Rent Controller (ARC) had declined to take the petitioner’s Application seeking Leave to Defend (LTD Application) on record because it was filed with a delay of two days.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner’s counsel admitted that the ARC does not have the legal authority to condone delays in filing an LTD Application. However, they argued that the High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act, can grant appropriate relief in exceptional circumstances. Given that the delay was a mere two days, the petitioner requested that the delay be condoned and the matter remanded to the ARC to be decided on its merits.
To justify the delay, the petitioner pointed to Paragraph 2 of their Condonation of Delay Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which stated:
“That the Respondent received the summon for judgment on 4.8.2025 and thereafter, the Respondent searched the documents for filing the leave to defend application and after searching the relevant documents, provided the same to his counsel and thereafter, counsel prepared the leave to defend application and filed before this Hon’ble Court on 21.08.2025.”
The respondent’s counsel strongly opposed the petition, and both parties were heard at length by the Court.
The Court’s Analysis
The High Court analyzed the scope of its revisional powers under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act when a tenant fails to file an LTD Application within the statutorily prescribed timeframe. The Court referenced the Division Bench ruling of the Delhi High Court in Director Directorate of Education & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Shamim & Ors. (2019:DHC:6510-DB).
In that landmark case, the Division Bench explained the scope of the Court’s powers under the proviso to Section 25B(8), stating in Paragraph 25:
“We, therefore, hold that merely because the Controller has passed an order of eviction in a proceeding governed under Section 25B, on failure of the tenant to, within the prescribed time, apply for leave to defend and merely because the Controller vide Prithpal Singh supra has been held to be not empowered to recall the said order, would not prevent this Court from, in exercise of powers under proviso to Section 25B(8), considering once a case for the landlord to be not entitled to an order of eviction to be deemed admission following non-filing of leave to defend within the prescribed time, the said order cannot be said to have been made according to law and would qualify as being contrary to law and liable to be set aside.”
However, the Division Bench explicitly restricted this power by laying down a strict condition in Paragraph 26:
“Having held so, we answer the question no. (A) framed in the referral order in the affirmative and with the condition that this Court would be empowered to set aside the order of eviction only if the tenant passes the dual test of prevented by reasons beyond control from applying for leave to defend within the prescribed time (as distinct from every default) and if makes out a substantial case for consideration of the application for leave to defend.”
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that these two requirements are cumulative. Therefore, unless a tenant successfully satisfies both parts of this dual test, the High Court cannot interfere with an eviction order under its revisional jurisdiction.
Applying this rule to the current case, the Court found that the petitioner failed to satisfy even the first limb of the test. The petitioner’s sole explanation for the two-day delay was the time taken to search for and collect documents to file alongside the LTD Application.
Rejecting this explanation, the Court observed:
“In the considered view of this Court, the aforesaid explanation, by itself, cannot constitute a circumstance beyond the control of the Petitioner, as contemplated by the learned Division Bench.”
Since no other evidence or arguments were presented to show that the tenant was prevented from filing on time due to factors beyond his control, the Court noted that the first part of the test remained unfulfilled. Consequently, there was no need to evaluate the second part of the test. The Court remarked:
“once the Petitioner has failed to satisfy the first and foundational limb of the dual test prescribed by the learned Division Bench, the question of examining whether the Petitioner has made out a substantial case for consideration of the LTD Application does not arise.”
Decision of the Court
Finding no legal error or infirmity in the order passed by the ARC, the High Court held that there were no grounds to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act. The revision petition, along with all pending applications, was dismissed.
Case Details:
Case Title: MALKEET SINGH v. AJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL
Case No.: RC.REV. 148/2026, CM APPL. 28294/2026 (Stay) & CM APPL. 28295/2026 (Ex.)
Bench: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Date: 09.07.2026
