Smt. Kamlesh vs Sh. Bhagwan Dass And Anr.

$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 02.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010471582019
+ RC.REV. 683/2019 & CM APPL. 52163/2019 (Addl.Doc.)
SMT. KAMLESH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankita Patnaik, Advocate
(DHCLSC).
versus

SH. BHAGWAN DASS AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tushar Sinha, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)
1. The present Petition, filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi
1
Rent Control Act, 1958 , read with Article 227 of the Constitution
2 3
of India, 1950 , seeks to assail the Order dated 15.01.2019 and the
4
Order dated 31.07.2019 , hereinafter collectively referred to as
“Impugned Orders” , passed by the learned Additional Rent
5
Controller, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi , in the
6
Eviction Petition, being RC ARC No. 67/2017 (E-19/2017) , titled
“Kamlesh v. Bhagwan Dass & Another”.


1
DRC Act
2
Constitution
3
Dismissal Order
4
Restoration Order
5
ARC
6
Eviction Petition
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
15:59:42
RC.REV. 683/2019 Page 1 of 7

BRIEF FACTS:
2. The Petitioner is the mother of Respondent No. 1 and the
mother-in-law of Respondent No. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that
she is the owner of property bearing No. F-II/168, Madangir, New
7
Delhi-110062 , and that in July, 2015 she let out the Second Floor of
8
the Subject Premises to the Respondents at a monthly rent of Rs.
3,000. Alleging that no rent had been paid since July, 2015, and that
the Legal Notice dated 03.03.2017 had gone unheeded, the Petitioner
instituted the Eviction Petition, under Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(e)
of the DRC Act, seeking eviction of the Respondents along with the
arrears of rent.
3. The Respondents contested the Eviction Petition and denied the
existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the
parties. They contended that Respondent No. 1, being one of the legal
heirs of his late father, Sh. Kanhaiya Lal, resides in the Tenanted
Premises as a co-owner, and that the General Power of Attorney and
the Will relied upon by the Petitioner are forged and fabricated.
4. Upon completion of pleadings, the Petitioner filed her evidence
by way of Affidavit on 27.10.2017, and the matter was listed for
Petitioner's Evidence. By Order dated 24.11.2018, the learned ARC
dismissed an Application filed by the Respondents under Order VII
9
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , observing that the
relief in the Eviction Petition was claimed only under Section 14(1)(a)
of the DRC Act. The matter was thereafter listed for Petitioner's
Evidence on 15.01.2019.

7
Subject Premises
8
Tenanted Premises
9
CPC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
15:59:42
RC.REV. 683/2019 Page 2 of 7

5. On 15.01.2019, the record reflects that none appeared on behalf
of the Petitioner despite calls, and the matter was passed over. As
there was no appearance on behalf of the Petitioner even upon the
matter being taken up again, the learned ARC, vide the Dismissal
Order, dismissed the Eviction Petition for non-appearance and non-
prosecution, observing that the Petitioner did not appear to be serious
about pursuing the same.
6. The Petitioner thereafter moved an Application under Order
10
IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC, dated 30.04.2019 , seeking
restoration of the Eviction Petition. In the Restoration Application, the
Petitioner stated that she is an aged lady suffering from various
ailments and dependent upon her younger son for her movement. She
further stated that her counsel was attending to his newborn child on
the date of hearing, and that the proxy counsel deputed by him was
unable to appear before the learned ARC. By the Restoration Order,
the learned ARC dismissed the Restoration Application on three
grounds, namely , that the Petitioner had been absent on 15.11.2017
and on the two dates preceding the Dismissal Order; that no medical
document had been placed on record in support of her alleged illness;
and that the Restoration Application had been filed beyond the period
of thirty days, without any explanation for the delay.
7. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has preferred the present
Petition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits
that the Petitioner is an aged widow, presently being represented

10
Restoration Application
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
15:59:42
RC.REV. 683/2019 Page 3 of 7

through counsel appointed by the Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee, who has been regularly pursuing the Eviction Petition and
has appeared before the learned ARC on most of the dates of hearing.
It is fairly submitted that on 24.11.2018, neither the Petitioner nor her
counsel was present before the learned ARC, as a result of which the
next date of hearing, i.e. , 15.01.2019, was not known to the Petitioner.
On that date, owing to their absence, the Eviction Petition came to be
dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the
absence of the Petitioner was neither deliberate nor intentional. It was
occasioned by her ill-health, by her dependence upon her son, who
was himself unable to accompany her, and by the inability of her
counsel to attend the proceedings. It is submitted that the dismissal of
the Eviction Petition, and the refusal to restore it, have resulted in
grave prejudice to the Petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in light of the foregoing
submissions, submits that the Impugned Orders be set aside.
11. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondents submits that the Impugned Orders are well-reasoned and
call for no interference. It is submitted that the Petitioner failed to
appear on multiple dates, did not place any medical document on
record before the learned ARC in support of her alleged illness, and
filed the Restoration Application beyond the period of limitation
without any explanation for the delay.
12. Learned counsel for the Respondents further submits that there
exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties,
Respondent No. 1 being in occupation of the Tenanted Premises as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
15:59:42
RC.REV. 683/2019 Page 4 of 7

one of the legal heirs of his late father.
13. Learned counsel for the Respondents also submits that the
Petitioner has preferred proceedings under the Maintenance and
11
Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 , seeking
eviction of the Respondents, and that there is, therefore, no
requirement for the Impugned Orders to be set aside.
ANALYSIS:
14. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and, with their able assistance, perused the material available
on record, including the relevant documents and the Impugned Orders.
15. A perusal of the record reveals that on 06.09.2018, though the
Petitioner herself was not present, she was represented by her counsel,
while on 24.11.2018, there was no appearance either by the Petitioner
or by her counsel. On 15.01.2019, despite the matter having been
passed over, there was again no appearance either by the Petitioner or
by her counsel, and the Eviction Petition came to be dismissed for
non-prosecution. The Dismissal Order is thus founded upon the
absence of the Petitioner and her counsel on two consecutive dates of
hearing.
16. This Court also takes cognizance of the fact that the Petitioner
is a woman of advanced age and is presently being represented
through counsel appointed by way of legal aid. The record further
reveals that, prior to the aforesaid dates, the Petitioner had appeared
before the learned ARC on several dates of hearing, including on dates
on which the proceedings could not be taken up for reasons not
attributable to her.

11
Senior Citizens Act
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
15:59:42
RC.REV. 683/2019 Page 5 of 7

17. This Court also cannot lose sight of the unfortunate
circumstances in which the dispute has arisen, which are set out in the
present Petition. The proceedings have been instituted by a mother
against her son and daughter-in-law, in respect of the very premises in
which they reside.
18. Insofar as the submission of learned counsel for the
Respondents premised upon the proceedings preferred by the
Petitioner under the Senior Citizens Act is concerned, this Court is of
the view that the mere filing of a petition under the Senior Citizens
Act would not disentitle the Petitioner from pursuing the remedies
available to her under the DRC Act. The two proceedings operate in
their respective spheres, and the pendency of the former cannot be a
ground to sustain the dismissal of the latter for non-prosecution.
19. Considering the advanced age of the Petitioner and her limited
resources, and in particular the fact that the Petitioner and her counsel
were unable to be present on only two occasions, this Court is of the
considered view that the dismissal of the Eviction Petition was a
disproportionate consequence of such absence. The Petitioner, who
has already filed her evidence by way of Affidavit, ought not to be
non-suited without an adjudication of the Eviction Petition on its
merits.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Impugned Orders cannot be sustained and
that the interests of the Respondents can adequately be safeguarded by
the imposition of costs.
DECISION:
21. The Impugned Orders are, accordingly, set aside, subject to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
15:59:42
RC.REV. 683/2019 Page 6 of 7

payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) by the
Petitioner to the Respondents, within a period of three (03) weeks
from today.
22. Subject to the payment of the aforesaid costs, the Eviction
Petition, being RC ARC No. 67/2017, shall stand restored to its
original number and position before the learned ARC, at the stage at
which it stood on 15.01.2019. The learned ARC shall proceed with the
Eviction Petition in accordance with law.

23. It is clarified that nothing stated herein shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the rival contentions of the
parties, including the existence or otherwise of the relationship of
landlord and tenant between them, or on the proceedings pending
under the Senior Citizens Act, which shall be decided on their own
merits and in accordance with law.
24. The present Petition, along with pending Application(s), if any,
stands disposed of in aforementioned terms.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
NOVEMBER 02, 2026/tk/DJ
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
15:59:42
RC.REV. 683/2019 Page 7 of 7