A tenant must prove circumstances beyond their control to excuse late leave to defend.

The tenant challenged the Rent Controller’s order refusing to take on record his application for leave to defend an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

The Controller found that the tenant had been served on 29 May 2024 and had not filed the application within the prescribed 15 days; it consequently passed an eviction order concerning Shop No. 627, Hamilton Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi.

The tenant claimed that he was in Punjab when service occurred and that his brother had received the petition documents.

The High Court found no supporting material for the claim that the tenant was in Punjab and noted that receipt by his brother was not disputed.

The tenant sought revision under Section 25B(8) of the Act.

1. Whether the Rent Controller’s refusal to entertain the belated leave-to-defend application disclosed a jurisdictional error, material irregularity, perversity, or error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under Section 25B(8).

2. Whether the tenant established that circumstances beyond his control prevented him from filing the application within the prescribed period, so as to satisfy the first limb of the dual test for reopening the proceedings.

Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 prescribes a 15-day period for a tenant to seek leave to defend in the summary eviction procedure; the statutory requirement is integral to that procedure.

Under the proviso to Section 25B(8), the High Court exercises supervisory and revisional, not appellate, jurisdiction and may not substitute its view for that of the Rent Controller merely because another view is possible; intervention is limited to defects such as jurisdictional error, material irregularity, perversity, manifest illegality, or an error apparent on the face of the record.

In Directorate of Education & Anr. v. Mohd. Shamim & Ors., (2020) 266 DLT 1, the court stated that a tenant seeking to reopen the proceedings must satisfy a dual test: show that reasons beyond the tenant’s control prevented timely filing and make out a substantial case for consideration of the leave-to-defend application.

The tenant’s assertion that he was in Punjab was unsupported by material, and the Controller’s finding that service had been effected on and signed by the tenant was not meaningfully controverted.

Even assuming the tenant was away, he did not explain why receipt of the documents by his brother could not have brought the proceedings to his attention within the prescribed period.

The explanation therefore did not establish circumstances beyond his control, failing the first limb of the Mohd. Shamim test.

Applying the limited revisional standard, the High Court found no error in the Controller’s finding of service or in the refusal to accept the belated application; because the first limb failed, it did not examine whether the tenant had a substantial defence.

It dismissed the revision petition and disposed of any pending applications; the previously fixed date of 13 October 2026 was cancelled.