Delhi HC Revives Aged Mother’s Eviction Case Against Son And Daughter-In-Law, Subject To ₹5,000 Costs After Two Missed Hearings

The petitioner, the first respondent’s mother, filed an eviction petition under Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, alleging that she owned the premises and had let the second floor to the respondents.

The respondents denied the landlord–tenant relationship and claimed that the first respondent occupied the premises as a co-owner.

After the petitioner filed her evidence, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition for non-appearance on 15 January 2019, following non-appearance by both the petitioner and her counsel on the preceding hearing date.

The petitioner’s restoration application was dismissed on grounds including her previous absences, lack of medical documentation, and delay beyond thirty days.

She challenged both orders in this revision petition.

The revision was brought under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The restoration application before the Rent Controller had invoked Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court applied the principle that dismissal for non-prosecution should not stand where, in the circumstances, it would impose a disproportionate consequence and prevent adjudication on the merits; the interests of the opposing parties may instead be protected by costs.

It also held that a proceeding under the Senior Citizens Act operates in its own sphere and does not, merely by being filed, bar pursuit of a remedy under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner and her counsel had been absent on two consecutive hearing dates, but considered the petitioner’s advanced age, limited resources, legal-aid representation, and prior participation in the proceedings.

It also noted that she had already filed her evidence and concluded that dismissal without a merits determination was disproportionate in the circumstances.

The pending Senior Citizens Act proceeding did not justify sustaining the dismissal because it did not disentitle the petitioner from pursuing her DRC Act remedy.

The Court found that the respondents’ interests could be protected by imposing costs.

Upon payment, the eviction petition was to be restored to its original number and position at the stage it had reached on 15 January 2019, for the Rent Controller to proceed in accordance with law.

The Court expressed no view on the merits of the landlord–tenant dispute or the Senior Citizens Act proceedings.