Tenants failing to file 'leave to defend' cannot challenge eviction orders via revision petitions under Delhi Rent Control Act.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the bona fide requirement of the landlord stood extinguished upon his death during the pendency of the eviction proceedings

The court held

The Court held that the petition was both devoid of merit and legally non-maintainable

It also directed

It affirmed that the bona fide requirement survived for the Respondent (widow)

The Court answered that a tenant who fails to seek leave to defend cannot subsequently invoke revisional jurisdiction to challenge the consequential eviction order

The Revision Petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Association

01Facts

The Petitioner (tenant) sought to set aside an eviction order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), Patiala House Courts

pp. 1-2

The original landlord, Shri Kranti Arora, had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, citing a bona fide requirement for himself and his wife to stay in Delhi for medical treatment

p. 2

During the pendency of the proceedings, the original landlord passed away

p. 2

The Petitioner failed to file an application for 'leave to defend' within the statutory period

p. 3, 6

Consequently, the ARC passed the eviction order, holding that the requirement survived for the benefit of the surviving spouse (Respondent)

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the bona fide requirement of the landlord stood extinguished upon his death during the pendency of the eviction proceedings

pp. 2 / para. 2-4

ii.2. Whether a revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is maintainable when the tenant has failed to file an application seeking leave to defend within the prescribed time

pp. 8-9 / para. 26-28

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, specifically sub-section (4), which mandates that a tenant cannot contest an eviction prayer unless leave to defend is sought and obtained; failure to do so results in the deemed admission of the landlord’s statements

pp. 6-7

The court relied on Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh, affirming that Section 25B is a complete code and the timeline for leave to defend is mandatory

p. 7

Regarding revisional jurisdiction, the court cited Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua and Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which establish that the High Court’s power under Section 25B(8) is supervisory/revisional, not appellate, and is confined to the "decision-making process"

pp. 4-5

04Reasoning

The Court observed that under Section 25B(4), the Petitioner's failure to file for leave to defend resulted in a statutory admission of the eviction petition's contents

p. 6

Therefore, the Petitioner was legally precluded from contesting the merits of the bona fide requirement

p. 7

On the merits of the subsequent event (the death of the landlord), the Court analyzed Paragraph 19 of the original eviction petition and found that the requirement was pleaded for both the late Kranti Arora and his wife

p. 8

Thus, the need did not expire with the husband’s death but subsisted for the widow

p. 8

Furthermore, the Court reasoned that allowing a revision petition after a tenant voluntarily forfeited their right to contest at the trial stage would circumvent the legislative intent of the DRC Act’s summary procedure

p. 9

05Holding

The Court held that the petition was both devoid of merit and legally non-maintainable

p. 10

It affirmed that the bona fide requirement survived for the Respondent (widow)

p. 8

The Court answered that a tenant who fails to seek leave to defend cannot subsequently invoke revisional jurisdiction to challenge the consequential eviction order

p. 9

The Revision Petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Association

p. 10

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF