Delhi District Court
Mohd. Saied vs Onkar Singh Ors on 20 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF CCJ-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by Sh. Devanshu Sajlan
RC ARC -: 477971/2016
Unique Case ID -:
DLCT030001102008
In the matter of -
MR. MOHD. SAIED (now deceased)
represented through LRs
.... Petitioner
V.
1. ONKAR SINGH, and
2. MR. IQBAL SINGH.
... Respondents
1. Date of Institution : 11.08.2008
2. Date of Reserving Order : 19.01.2026
3. Date of Decision : 20.01.2026
Petition allowed, but benefit
4. Decision : u/s 14(2) of the DRC Act
given to the respondent.
Argued by -: Sh. R.Y. Kalia, Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
1. Originally, this petition for eviction of tenants was filed under clause (a), (b) & (j) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC DEVANSHU SAJLAN RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.1 of 19 Digitally signed by DEVANSHU SAJLAN Date: 2026.01.20 17:43:15 +0530 Act') for recovery of possession of tenanted premises, i.e., one room on the first floor and one room on the second floor bearing No. 100- E-I & E-II, Crockery Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit premises').
2. The petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 28.10.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 27.10.2025, passed by the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, with the following observations:
(i) The petitioner agreed to confine his appeal and prayer only to Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act;
(ii) The landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is admitted; and
(iii) The respondent has admitted service of the legal notice dated 29.09.2003 claiming arrears of rent.
3. A specific direction was passed by the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, to the effect that "the Ld. ARC shall proceed with the file in the light of clear admission that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant and that the legal demand notice was duly served upon the respondent."
4. Pursuant to the order passed by the Ld. Appellate Court, as mentioned above, the matter was listed for final arguments before the undersigned. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer to Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act before the undersigned as well.
Digitally RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.2 of 19 signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:43:21 +0530 Accordingly, the present judgment discusses the case of the petitioner on the aspect of Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act only.
I. FACTS:
5. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the property bearing no. 100-E-I & E-II, Crockery Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 vide Will dated 05.03.1999 executed by his mother late Smt. Rashida Khatoon, who expired on 09.02.2001. The petitioner sent a letter of attornment dated 25.05.2001 through UPC, and he got the property mutated in his name and paid house tax regularly. The mutation letter dated 03.06.2003, receipts and house tax receipts are annexed with the petition. It is stated in the petition that the respondents are the tenants in respect of the tenanted premises thereof at the rate of Rs. 121/- per month, exclusive of electricity and water charges. It is further stated in the petition that the respondents are habitual defaulters in payment of rent, and they have not paid the rent w.e.f. 01.04.2000, despite repeated demands and hence, they have been in arrears of rent since 01.04.2000. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioner had also sent a legal demand notice dated 29.09.2003 through Registered Post as well as UPC. However, despite service of the legal demand notice, it is alleged that the respondents neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent.
6. It is further stated that the tenancy was a joint tenancy for non-residential purposes. It is further stated that the petitioner has taken permission from the Competent Authority (Slums) to file the present eviction petition vide order dated 11.10.2007.
Digitally signed by RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.3 of 19 DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:43:26 +0530 II. SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND TRIAL PROCEEDINGS:
7. Summons were served upon the respondents, who preferred to contest the same.
8. The eviction petition is contested by both respondents by way of a common written statement of defence on the ground that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed material facts. Respondents admitted the tenant-landlord relationship. The respondents denied that they are habitual defaulters in relation to payment of rent qua the suit premises. It is alleged by the respondents that they requested the petitioner to collect the payment many times, and the petitioner had last collected the rent on 28.06.2008, i.e., w.e.f. 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2008 (and the present petition was filed on 12.08.2008).
9. Replication was filed by the petitioner to the written statement of the respondents, wherein he reaffirmed the facts mentioned in the petition and denied the defence taken by the respondents.
10. In support of his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A relying upon several documents as follows :-
1) Will dated 05.03.1999 Ex. PW1/1.
2) Letter of attornment dated 25.05.2001 is Ex. PW1/2 and the photocopy of its UPC marked 'X'.
3) Mutation letter dated 03.06.2003 Ex. PW1/3.
4) Five MCD House Tax Receipts are collectively Ex. PW1/4.
Digitally signed by DEVANSHU RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.4 of 19 DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:43:30 +0530
5) Demand Letter dated 27.02.2002 Ex. PW1/5 and photocopy of postal receipt/ UPC marked 'Y'.
6) Document Ex. PW1/6 is missing from the affidavit due to a typographical mistake.
7) Site plan Ex. PW1/7.
8) Demand Letter dated 29.09.2003 Ex. PW1/8.
9) Document Ex. PW1/9 is a photocopy; therefore, the same is marked as Mark 'X'.
10) Notice dated 07.05.2004 is Ex. PW1/10.
11) Order dated 11.10.2007 of Ld. Competent Authority (Slums) Ex. PW1/11.
PW was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondents, and PE was closed on 13.03.2014.
11. In support of their case, the respondent no. 2 Sh. Iqbal Singh examined himself as RW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A and relied upon only one document, i.e., Ex. RW1/1, i.e., Rent Receipt dated 18.04.2010 (OSR). This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, and RE was closed on 12.04.2018.
III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:
12. I have heard the arguments tendered by Sh. R.Y. Kalia, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, and Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal, Ld. Counsel for both the respondents. I have gone through the entire material placed on record carefully.
Digitally signed by RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.5 of 19 DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:43:34 +0530
13. Cause of action for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent constitutes the following facts :-
(i) Relation of landlord and tenant.
(ii) Existence of arrears of rent legally recoverable on the date
of notice of demand.
(iii) Service of notice of demand in the manner prescribed in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(iv) Failure of the tenant to pay or tender the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable from him within 2 months of the date of service of notice.
14. So far as the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned, the same is not disputed and the Ld. Appellate Court has also directed the undersigned to proceed on the basis that a landlord-tenant relationship exists between the parties.
15. Secondly, the Ld. Appellate Court has also directed the undersigned to proceed on the basis that the legal demand notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was duly served upon the respondents.
16. Now, what remains to be seen is whether any arrears of rent were remaining to be paid by the respondents and whether the respondents had failed to make the payment of rent within 2 months of service of notice, so as to make out a cause of action against the respondents/tenants.
17. In order to show that there were arrears regarding rent, the petitioner has pleaded on oath that the respondents did not pay the Digitally signed by RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.6 of 19 DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:43:39 +0530 rent w.e.f. 01.04.2000. As per the case of the petitioner, the demand notice dated 29.09.2003 was served upon the respondents, in which the petitioner claimed arrears of rent from 01.04.2000 up to 31.08.2003. The said legal notice is Ex. PW1/8. Thereafter, another legal notice dated 07.05.2004, Ex. PW1/10 was served upon the respondents, in which reference was again made to the legal notice dated 29.09.2003, and it was specifically mentioned that the respondents have not complied with the said legal notice.
18. The demand made in the legal notice dated 29.09.2003 is specific to the extent that an amount of Rs. 110/- per month has been claimed from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2002, and an amount of Rs. 121/- per month has been claimed from 01.04.2002 up to 31.08.2003 (along-with interest @ 18% per annum on the arrears due). The respondents have admitted in their WS that no written reply was filed to the aforesaid legal notice, and the respondents had personally met the petitioner in relation to the aforesaid legal notice (see reply to para 18(b) of the eviction petition in the WS).
19. Therefore, as far as the ingredient of 'existence of arrears of rent legally recoverable on the date of notice of demand' is concerned, the same is duly established on the basis of the legal demand notice dated 29.09.2003, which has been duly exhibited as Ex. PW1/8. As noted above, the respondents have admitted that they never sent a written reply to the said legal notice since they personally met the petitioner pursuant to the notice. Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondents due to their failure to reply to the legal notice dated 29.09.2003. In this regard, Digitally signed by RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.7 of 19 DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:43:42 +0530 reliance may be placed upon Krishan Kumar Aggarwal v. Life Insurance Corporation, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4419:
65) No explanation has been rendered by the respondent as to why letter dated 23rd August, 2008 and the legal notice sent by the appellant were not repudiated or even replied. Despite due receipt, the respondent did not bother to even send any response to the letter dated 23rd August, 2008 or the legal notice, the contents whereof would be deemed to have been admitted. In the judicial precedents reported in Rakesh Kumar v. Hindustan Everest Tool Ltd. (1988) 2 SCC 165 & Hiralal Kapur v. Prabhu Chaudhary (1988) 2 SCC 172 it was held by the Supreme Court that a categorical assertion by the landlord in a legal notice if not replied to and controverted, can be treated as an admission by a tenant.
66) In a Division Bench proceedings of this court reported in Metropolis Travels & Resorts v. Sumit Kalra 98 (2002) DLT 573 (DB), no adverse inference was drawn against the respondent for failure to reply the legal notice on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. Reference was made to proceedings reported in Kalu Ram v. Sita Ram 1980 RLR (note) 44 wherein it had been observed that service of notice being admitted without reservation and that having not been replied, in that eventuality adverse inference should be drawn.
20. Once the petitioner pleaded on oath and had also exhibited the legal notice claiming arrears of rent, the onus was upon the respondents to show that they had duly paid the arrears of rent within 02 months from the date of service of the legal demand notice Ex. PW1/8 or that there were no arrears to begin with. However, the respondents have not furnished any material in this regard. The respondent No. 2 examined himself in DE and exhibited a rent receipt, i.e., Ex. RW1/1. However, the said rent receipt is dated 15.04.2010. The respondent No. 2 himself admitted that the said receipt is only qua part payment up to 18.04.2010 (see cross- examination dated 12.04.2018). The respondent No. 2 has nowhere Digitally signed by RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.8 of 19 DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:43:46 +0530 claimed in his evidence by way of the affidavit that the Ex. RW1/1 pertains to the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.08.2003. The respondents have not furnished any rent receipt evidencing payment of rent for the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.08.2003. The respondents cannot contend that they were not given rent receipts by the petitioner since such an eventuality is duly taken care of by Section 26 (3) of the DRC Act. As per the said provision, if the landlord refuses/neglects to deliver a rent receipt, the tenant can file an application seeking the rent receipt before the Rent Controller within 02 months from the date of payment of rent. Therefore, the respondents were required to show payment of rent through rent receipts or any other material, but they have not furnished any such material.
21. Since the respondents have failed to produce the rent receipts for the relevant period, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, to the effect that, had such rent receipts been produced, the same would have been unfavourable to them. In view of this omission, the respondents have not been able to substantiate their plea of having cleared the arrears of rent within the statutory period. Consequently, on an overall consideration of the material on record, I am of the considered view that the respondents have not been able to show that they cleared the arrears of rent within the statutory period.
22. Therefore, in terms of the aforesaid discussion, the respondents/tenants are liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises i.e. one room on the first floor and one room on the Digitally signed by DEVANSHU RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.9 of 19 DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:43:50 +0530 second floor bearing No. 100-E-I & E-II, Crockery Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition.
23. However, given the provision under Section 14(2) of the DRC Act, eviction cannot be ordered straightaway under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act, without complying with the provisions under Section 15(1) of the Act, and giving the tenant an opportunity to make the payment, as directed. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the benefit u/s 15(1) of the DRC Act has already been given vide order dated 02.08.2011, when the order u/s 15(1) of the DRC Act was duly passed.
24. On the aforesaid issue, the matter was listed today for clarification. Today, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has filed a judgment, namely Meena Sharma v. Rajiv Kumar, CM(M) 797/2014, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In the said judgment, reliance was placed upon the judgment of Ram Parkash Tewari v. Suraj Bhan Yadav, 90 (2001) DLT 236. Relevant holding from the said judgment is extracted below:
26. I am really concerned with the second option, namely, when the learned Controller allows an application filed under Section 15(7) of the Act and strikes out the defence of the tenant.
27. In such a situation, it is quite obvious that the order striking out the defence of the tenant is passed because of his failure to comply with an order passed under Section 15 of the Act.
There is a further consequence of not complying with an order passed under Section 15 of the Act. This is mentioned in Section 14(2) of the Act.
28. Section 14(2) of the Act provides that an order for recovery of possession cannot be passed "if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by Section 15". In other words, a tenant is Digitally signed by RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.10 of 19 DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:43:54 +0530 entitled to claim the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act if he complies with an order passed under Section 15 of the Act. This is clear from a plain reading of Section 14(2) of the Act. Conversely, and if I may use a cricketing term, a "reverse sweep" of this would mean that if a tenant fails to pay or deposit rent as required by Section 15, an order for recovery of possession can be passed against him. ...
34. Before me, the question is one of disobedience of an order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act. The question is whether a tenant can avail the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act if he fails to comply with an order passed under Section 15 of the Act. In other words, the question is not of availing the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act for a second time : the question is of availing the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act for the first time if there is non-compliance with an order passed under Section 15 of the Act.
35. The answer to this question, as per my analysis above, is that if a tenant does not comply with an order passed under Section 15 of the Act, and if his defence is struck out under the provisions of Section 15(7) of the Act, then he is not entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act, even in the case of a first default. The reason is the use of the words "if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by Section 15" occurring in Section 14(2) of the Act. In other words, the benefit of Section 14(2) can be claimed by a tenant only if he meets its pre-condition, which is compliance with an order under Section 15 of the Act.
25. Therefore, it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the aforesaid case that the benefit u/s 14(2) of the DRC Act cannot be availed (i) if a tenant does not comply with an order passed under Section 15 of the Act, and (ii) if his defence is struck out under the provisions of Section 15(7) of the Act (see paragraph 35 of the judgment).
26. In the present case, there was no occasion for striking off the defense u/s 15(7) of the DRC Act since the contention regarding non-compliance of the order passed u/s 15(1) of the DRC Act was Digitally signed by RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.11 of 19 DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:43:58 +0530 raised for the first time during final arguments on 10.11.2025. Therefore, the petitioner has not pressed for an order under section 15(7) of the DRC Act and has instead submitted that since there is non-compliance with the order passed under section 15(1) of the DRC Act, the benefit under section 14(2) of the DRC Act ought not to be given to the respondents. I agree with the said submission to the extent that if the order under section 15(1) of the DRC Act is not complied with, the benefit under section 14(2) of the DRC Act is not available. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the benefit under section 14(2) of the DRC Act gets triggered only "if the tenant makes payment or deposit as required by Section 15". Therefore, the language used in Section 14(2) of the DRC Act leaves no manner of doubt that the benefit u/s 14 (2) of the DRC Act will only be available once the tenant makes the requisite payment under Section 15 of the DRC Act. Accordingly, it does not matter whether the defence is struck off u/s 15 (7) of the DRC Act. The benefit u/s 14(2) of the DRC Act will not accrue to the tenant if the tenant has not complied with the directions passed u/s 15(1) of the DRC Act.
The same is the ratio decidendi of Ram Parkash Tewari (supra).
27. Detailed arguments have been heard on the point of compliance of Section 15(1) of the DRC Act by the respondents. Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit on 18.11.2025 to show that the order passed u/s 15(1) of the DRC Act dated 02.08.2011 was duly complied with by the respondents. The said affidavit was accompanied by an application u/s 151 CPC seeking condonation of the delay of 13 days in depositing the rent for December 2011. The petitioner also filed a counter-affidavit in this regard. The petitioner Digitally RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.12 of 19 signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:44:02 +0530 has not denied receiving the payments mentioned in the tabular chart filed by respondent No. 2. However, the petitioner has submitted that the payment made for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.07.2011 is not sufficient since the respondents have not paid interest @15% for 16 months in compliance with Section 26 of the DRC Act.
28. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that there was no direction to pay the interest in the order dated 02.08.2011, whereas Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the direction to pay interest is contained in Section 26 of the DRC Act, and the same automatically applies regardless of any direction given in the order u/s 15(1) of the DRC Act.
29. I do not agree with the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Lok Nath v. Ashok Kumar, CM(M) 360/2012, wherein it was held that:
11. A collation of the facts as stated above shows that undoubtedly there is a default in payment of interest by the respondent/tenant as demanded in the legal notice Ex. AW-
1/10, however, simultaneously it is also clear that the order under Section 15(1) which is required to be complied with for getting the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act also did not order for payment of interest on the delayed payment of rent and even the petitioners/landlords never did apply for variation of the order dated 02.12.1999 under Section 15(1) or for variation of the final judgment dated 01.8.2008, in which the interim order dated 02.12.1999 merged that the interest component be directed to be paid/deposited by the respondent. Really, therefore, the present case is to be considered on the principle that an act of the court should not harm the litigant i.e since under Section 14(2) an eviction order should not be passed against the tenant with respect to default in payment of arrears of rent if the tenant Digitally signed by RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.13 of 19 DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:44:05 +0530 complied with the order passed under Section 15(1), then, a tenant cannot be allowed to be caused prejudice because of an act of the court by passing the order of eviction although the order passed under Section 15(1) did not direct payment of interest, and therefore, the respondent/tenant did not pay/deposit interest component.
30. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that in case there is an error while passing an order u/s 15(1) of the DRC Act, the tenant cannot be prejudiced on account of the same. Accordingly, it was held that if payment of interest was not directed while passing an order u/s 15(1) of the DRC Act, the tenant will not be required to pay the interest as stipulated u/s 26 of the DRC Act. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not address the specific fact scenario where an order u/s 15(1) of the DRC Act has been passed without a direction for payment of interest. Accordingly, the said judgments have no application to the facts of the present case. Therefore, in the present case, the petitioner cannot claim that there is non-compliance of Section 15(1) of the DRC Act on account of non-payment of interest for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.07.2011.
31. Once the aforesaid aspect of non-payment of interest is decided in favour of the respondents, the only objection that remains on account of the petitioner is that there is a delay of 13 days in payment of the rent for December 2011. The rent for December 2011 was required to be paid by 15.01.2012, whereas the said rent was deposited on 28.01.2012 by the respondents. As noted above, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has filed an application for Digitally signed by RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.14 of 19 DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:44:10 +0530 condonation of the delay in relation to the aforesaid delay. The ground taken in the application is that:
11. ...on account of some miscalculation and arithmetical error, the applicant remained under the impression that the rent had been deposited up to 31.12.2011. The applicant thereafter deposited the rent on 28.01.2012. At that time it was realized by the applicant that the rent previously deposited was only up to the period 30.11.2011. The rent for the month of December 2011 was to be deposited by 15th day of January 2012.
However, it was deposited on 28.01.2012. There was a delay of around 13 days in depositing the rent for the month of December 2011. The applicant on 28.01.2012 deposited the rent for the period December 2011 to 31.07.2012 on 28.01.2012.
32. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay on the point that the Rent Controller does not have the power to extend the time-line u/s 15(1) of the DRC Act. However, the power to condone the delay in making payment under section 15(1) of the DRC Act was expressly recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath, (1984) 3 SCC 111. Further, on this issue, reliance may also be placed upon the judgment of Jain Plastic Industry v. Gopi Chand, 1989 SCC OnLine Del 193, wherein it was held that:
18. Even if it is assumed that the finding of the Tribunal that Rs. 3000/- were not paid is correct, even then the tenant must succeed in this appeal for another reason. Assuming that Rs.
3000/- have not been paid, it would only mean that there were arrears of rent, as on the day when the eviction petition was filed, of a sum larger than Rs. 712/- which had been arrived at by the Additional Rent Controller. The Tribunal, namely, Shri N.C. Kochar, condoned the default of nonpayment of one month's rent and consequently did not strike out the defence of the tenant. Subsequently, the default has been made up and now there are no arrears of rent. Relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Shyamcharan Sharma v. Dharamdas, AIR 1980 SC 587 and Ram Murti v. Bhola Nath, AIR 1984 SC 1392 it has been contended by the learned Digitally signed by RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.15 of 19 DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:44:14 +0530 counsel for the tenant that where defence is not struck off for good and justifiable reason then the delay in depositing the money should also be condoned. Shyamcharan's case was dealing with S. 13(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 which contained an express provision enabling the Court to grant further time for deposit of arrears of rent. It also provided for the Court passing an Order requiring payment of future rent. It was also stipulated that in the event of non-payment of rent the defence could be struck off. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that on a correct construction of S. 13 the Court had the power to extend the time for payment for deposit of rent, both arrears of rent as well as future rent. If this power is exercised, the question of striking off the defence could not arise. In Ram Murti's case (supra), the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Delhi Act were similar to the aforesaid provisions of Madhya Pradesh Act. It observed that for good and justifiable reason the Court could come to the conclusion that the defence under S. 15(7) should not be struck off. It further observed that the Rent Controller had the jurisdiction to condone the delay under S. 15(1) of the Act. In other words, the reason which would persuade the Rent Controller not to strike off the defence under S. 15(7) would possibly be a good reason for condoing the delay in payment of rent. In the present case, the defence was not struck off because the Rent Control Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was for bona fide reasons and because of miscalculation that only 99 months' rent was paid instead of 100 months. It appears to me that this itself was a good ground for the Rent Control Tribunal or the Rent Controller for condoning the delay under S. 15(1) of the Act. In other words, even without giving the tenant the benefit claimed by him, namely of having paid Rs. 3000/- as rent the tenant was entitled, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, for condonation of delay in payment of one month's rent and if this delay is condoned, as it must be in the present case, S. 15(1) order must be regarded as having been complied with.
33. Accordingly, as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the Rent Controller has the power to condone delays in paying any rent. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi further clarified that the reason which would persuade the Rent Controller not to strike off the Digitally RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.16 of 19 signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:44:17 +0530 defence under S. 15(7) would possibly be a good reason for condoning the delay in payment of rent. The law with respect to the consideration u/s 15(7) of the DRC Act is well settled. The power vested under Section 15(7) of the DRC Act is discretionary and not mandatory and depends on contumacious or deliberate default and must be construed harmoniously to balance the rights and obligations of the tenant and the landlord; and the power under Section 15(7) of the DRC Act being an exception must be exercised with due care and circumspection (see Dina Nath (D) by LRs v. Subhash Chand Saini, Civil Appeal No. 4563/2014).
34. Therefore, while considering the application for condonation of delay, it has to be seen whether there has been a contumacious or deliberate default on the part of the respondents. As mentioned above, in the case of Jain Plastic Industry (supra), a miscalculation on the part of the tenant was held to be a valid reason while deciding the application for condonation of delay. In the present case as well, the reason pleaded in the application for condonation of delay is miscalculation on the part of the respondents. It is further imperative to note that for a continuous period of thirteen years from 2010 to 2023, there is only a single instance of non-compliance, namely in December 2011. This isolated lapse, viewed in the context of otherwise consistent compliance, clearly indicates that the respondents have substantially complied with the directions issued under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act. The affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 detailing payment of rent for the month of 01.04.2010 to 30.11.2023 has not been objected to by the petitioner, except for the issue regarding non-payment of interest, which has Digitally signed by RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.17 of 19 DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:44:22 +0530 already been decided above in favour of the respondents. The conduct of the respondents in paying the rent and complying with the directions u/s 15(1) of the DRC Act is not negligent in nature. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the application for condonation of delay seeking condonation of the delay of 13 days in paying the rent of December 2011 deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay on behalf of the respondents is allowed.
35. Once the aforesaid application stands allowed, there has been complete compliance with the order dated 02.08.2011 passed u/s 15(1) of the DRC Act. Therefore, the respondents are eligible for the benefit u/s 14(2) of the DRC Act.
36. Granting the benefit u/s 14(2) of the DRC Act, the following directions are passed under section 15 of the DRC Act:
(i) In the petition, an amount of Rs. 110/- per month has been claimed from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2002, and an amount of Rs. 121/- per month has been claimed from 01.04.2002 up to 31.08.2003 (see the eviction petition and the legal demand notice Ex. PW1/8). The legal notice claiming arrears of rent was sent on 29.09.2003. The petitioner can claim arrears of rent for a period of 03 years immediately preceding the date of service of the landlord's legal demand notice (see Dr. O.M. Parmar v. Harsh Vardhan Nayyar, 2022/DHC/005238, dated 24.11.2022). In this case, the arrears are claimed from 01.04.2000. However, the arrears can only be claimed from Digitally RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.18 of 19 signed by DEVANSHU DEVANSHU SAJLAN SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.20 17:44:25 +0530 29.09.2000, i.e., three years before the date of service of the legal demand notice.
(ii) Accordingly, the respondents are directed to deposit arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 110/- per month from 29.09.2000 to 31.03.2002, and at the rate of Rs. 121/- per month from 01.04.2002 up to 31.08.2003 with interest @ 15% p.a., with the Court within 30 days from today.
(iii) Nazir to maintain miscellaneous file for consideration of benefit under Section 14 (2) of the DRC Act, for 10.03.2026. Nazir to report regarding compliance of order under Section 15 (1) of the DRC Act. A copy of this judgment be placed in the miscellaneous file.
37. File be consigned to the record room.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in open Court DEVANSHU
DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
SAJLAN Date:
on the 20th Day of January 2026
2026.01.20
17:44:31
+0530
(Devanshu Sajlan)
CCJ-cum-ARC (Central)
THC/Delhi/20.01.2026
RC ARC 477971/16 Mohd. Saied v. Onkar Singh & Anr. Page No.19 of 19