Condonation of delayed leave to defend requires proof that circumstances beyond the tenant’s control prevented timely filing.

The tenant, Mohd Iqbal, was served with summons in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on 26 February 2026.

The 15-day period to seek leave to defend expired on 13 March 2026, but he filed his application on 27 March 2026, with a 14-day delay.

The tenant sought condonation on grounds including illiteracy, limited means, difficulty obtaining legal assistance and collecting old documents, and illness.

The Additional Rent Controller rejected the condonation application and passed an eviction order.

The tenant challenged that order in revision under Section 25-B(8) of the Act.

1. Whether the Additional Rent Controller’s refusal to condone the 14-day delay disclosed an error warranting interference under the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction

2. Whether the tenant established that circumstances beyond his control prevented him from filing the leave-to-defend application within time, as required by the applicable dual test

Section 25-B(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act provides for the statutory consequence where a tenant fails to seek leave to defend within the prescribed period; Section 25-B(8) gives the High Court a limited revisional, supervisory jurisdiction, not an appellate power to reappreciate the evidence or substitute its view for that of the Rent Controller (*Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua*; *Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh*; *Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.*)

Under *Directorate of Education v. Mohd. Shamim*, interference with an eviction order following a late leave-to-defend application requires the tenant to satisfy a cumulative dual test: establish that reasons beyond the tenant’s control prevented timely filing, and make out a substantial case for consideration of the proposed defence

The Court found that the tenant’s explanation was general and unsupported by particulars or evidence showing how illiteracy, lack of funds, or the collection of documents actually prevented filing within the 15-day period.

The application did not identify steps taken to obtain legal assistance or a specific impediment arising between service and the deadline.

The illness plea had not been raised before the Rent Controller and was not supported by cogent, unambiguous evidence.

The alleged title and adverse-possession defences did not explain the delay and could not replace the first limb of the dual test.

Since that limb was not met, the Court did not examine whether the proposed defence satisfied the second limb.

It found no jurisdictional error, material irregularity, perversity, or error apparent warranting revisional intervention.

The revision petition and any pending applications were dismissed; the eviction order remained undisturbed, and the previously fixed date of 19 November 2026 was cancelled.