Vague, unsupported explanations do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delayed leave-to-defend applications.

The Petitioners challenged, under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”) read with Section 151 CPC, the order dated 7 August 2024 passed by the learned SCJ-cum-Rent Controller, South-West District, Saket Courts, in RC ARC No. 30/2023, Gian Chand Garg v. Manoj Kumar & Ors.

The Rent Controller rejected the Petitioners’ application dated 5 March 2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing their application for leave to defend and consequently did not take the leave-to-defend application on record.

The Petitioners contended that Petitioner No. 1 was uneducated, a widow whose husband had died during the COVID-19 period, suffered from ailments, was not assisted by Petitioner No. 2, and did not understand the time-bound nature of proceedings under Section 25-B of the DRC Act.

Their condonation application also asserted that the landlord’s title was disputed and that status quo had allegedly been granted by the High Court.

The Respondents opposed condonation, but the Petitioners filed no rejoinder to that reply.

Whether the Petitioners established sufficient cause, supported by specific particulars, for condoning the delay in filing the application for leave to defend under Section 25-B of the DRC Act.

Whether the Rent Controller’s refusal to condone the delay disclosed a jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, perversity, or an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.

Whether the Petitioners’ reliance on Director, Directorate of Education & Anr. v. Mohd. Shamim & Ors. justified condonation of delay in the circumstances of the case.

The Court applied Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act, under which the High Court exercises limited supervisory and revisional jurisdiction over orders of the Rent Controller, and Section 151 CPC concerning the Court’s inherent powers.

Relying on Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30, the Court held that this jurisdiction is not appellate and does not permit substitution of the High Court’s view for that of the Rent Controller merely because another view is possible.

The Court also relied on Pankaj Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors., 2024:DHC:9322, and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny Grover, 2025:DHC:11285, for the restricted scope of revisional scrutiny.

Interference is warranted only for jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, perversity, absence of adjudication, or an error apparent on the face of the record.

Condonation of delay requires a sufficient and reasonably particularised explanation accounting for the delay; broad or sympathetic circumstances without supporting particulars are insufficient.

The Court found that the Petitioners’ condonation application contained only general assertions regarding the death of Petitioner No. 1’s husband, her alleged ailments, lack of assistance from her son, and unfamiliarity with legal procedure.

It did not specify the period of delay or explain, with reasonable particulars, why the Petitioners could not approach the Court or counsel within the prescribed period.

The Petitioners also failed to file a rejoinder to the Respondents’ reply, leaving the factual objections to their explanation unanswered.

The Rent Controller had considered the explanation and the applicable legal position before rejecting the application; therefore, the decision was not one rendered without adjudication or consideration of material facts.

Since the explanation was vague and unsupported by material particulars, and the impugned order disclosed no jurisdictional error, perversity, or other ground recognised under the narrow scope of Section 25-B(8), the Court declined to interfere.

The Rent Controller’s order dated 7 August 2024 was neither perverse nor affected by any jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting revisional interference.

The revision petition was accordingly dismissed, and the petition along with all pending applications was disposed of; the date fixed for 5 November 2026 was cancelled.