Delay in filing a rent appeal was condoned upon payment of admitted rent arrears.

The petitioners, being the mother and son—the latter a person with disability and represented by his mother as natural guardian—were the legal heirs of Respondent No. 4 in the underlying rent-control proceedings.

They filed R.C.A. No. 63 of 2026 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a delay of 908 days, and an application for stay of further proceedings, including delivery of possession.

Pursuant to the High Court’s earlier order dated 23 July 2026, the petitioners deposited ₹5.25 lakhs.

The petitioners challenged the appellate proceedings and the execution proceedings arising from the order in E.P. No. 244 of 2024 in R.C.P. No. 45 of 2011.

Whether the delay of 908 days in filing R.C.A. No. 63 of 2026 should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, having regard to the petitioners’ circumstances and the disability of the second petitioner?

Whether the petitioners’ right to prosecute the appeal should be made conditional upon payment of the admitted arrears of rent after adjustment of the ₹5.25 lakhs already deposited?

Whether further execution proceedings, including delivery of possession, should remain stayed pending disposal of the appeal?

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, under which delay may be condoned upon the applicant demonstrating “sufficient cause.”

It also applied the principle that procedural delay should not defeat adjudication on merits where the party has acted bona fide and refusal to condone the delay may result in manifest injustice.

The Court further relied upon its earlier judgment in R.C. (Rev.) No. 188 of 2024 dated 8 November 2024 for determining the prima facie admitted rate of rent at ₹3,750 per month from 9 April 2012.

As a condition for permitting the appeal to proceed, the Court directed payment of admitted arrears of rent, with credit for the ₹5.25 lakhs already deposited, and authorised the Appellate Court to resolve any bona fide dispute regarding the amount payable.

The Court found sufficient cause for the 908-day delay because the first petitioner was in a helpless position while caring for her son, who is a person with disability, and because the petitioners had demonstrated bona fides by complying with the earlier direction to deposit ₹5.25 lakhs.

Since refusal to allow the petitioners to contest the proceedings could result in manifest injustice, the Court considered condonation appropriate.

At the same time, balancing the petitioners’ right to pursue the appeal with the landlord’s entitlement to admitted rent, the Court required payment of arrears calculated at the admitted rate, after adjustment of the amount already deposited.

The Court preserved the petitioners’ right to participate in the appeal even where there was a bona fide dispute regarding any amount claimed over and above ₹5.25 lakhs, subject to further directions by the Appellate Court.

Upon such compliance, R.C.A. No. 63 of 2026 was to be admitted and heard on merits, and the impugned order was to remain stayed pending disposal of the appeal.

The landlord was permitted to withdraw the amount already deposited in the execution proceedings and adjust it towards admitted rent arrears.

The execution proceedings were quashed, and the OP (RC) was accordingly disposed of.