Delhi District Court
(Sh) Raj Mahajan vs Manmohan Kaur on 1 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL
WEST DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
RCT No. 14/2025
CNR No. DLWT01-005075-2025
Shri Raj Mahajan
S/o Late Shri Jagdish Gupta
Prop M/s. Glare Electrical Industries
45-A, Street No. 7, Anand Parbat Industrial Area
New Delhi - 110005.
Also at:
C-95, Anand Niketan
New Delhi - 110021. . . . . Appellant
Versus
1. Manmohan Kaur
Wd/o of Late S. Jaimal Singh
through attorney S. Narinder Singh
2. Narinder Singh
S/o Late S. Jaimal Singh
R/o WZ-11/1A, New Sahib Pura
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi - 110018.
3. Narinder Kaur
D/o Late S. Jaimal Singh
W/o S. Gurpal Singh
R/o WZ-B-104, Fateh Nagar,
New Delhi - 110018.
4. Harjit Kaur
D/o Late S. Jaimal Singh
W/o S. Kuldeep Singh
R/o FA-324, 1st Floor
RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 1 of 21
Mansarowar Garden
New Delhi - 110015
Through her Attorney S. Narinder Singh
5. Amarjeet Kaur
D/o Late S. Jaimal Singh
W/o Jaspal Singh
R/o G-77, Sant Nagar Extn.
Tilak Nagar, Delhi - 110018
Through her attorney S. Narinder Singh . . . . Respondents
Date of institution of the appeal : 19.05.2025
Date on which judgment was reserved: 15.11.2025
Date of judgment : 01.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter 'DRC Act') by the appellant/tenant, seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 25.04.2025, passed by the Ld. ARC (West), THC, Delhi in RC ARC No. 47/2023 titled as Manmohan Kaur & Ors. v. Raj Mahajan. Vide the said order, the Ld. ARC dismissed the application of the appellant/tenant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and closed the right to file written statement.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that the landlords/respondents who are the five legal representatives (hereinafter 'LRs') of late S. Jaimal Singh, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act against the appellant/tenant with regard to RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 2 of 21 property No. 45A, Street No.7, Anand Parbat Industrial Area, Delhi - 110005 (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises') on 19.05.2023. The tenanted premises was taken on rent by the father of the appellant and after his death, the same was occupied by the appellant. However, the same was not used by him for twenty-six years. The ground taken in the petition is that the petitioner No.2/respondent No.2 (SPA of other petitioners before the Trial Court) who is in possession of a small portion of the property, was sitting ideal and wanted to start his own business and so he needed the property, which is with the appellant/tenant. Hence, the bonafide requirement. The appellant/tenant filed for leave to defend under Section 25B (4) of the DRC Act, which was allowed vide order dated 16.11.2024. The ground for allowing the leave to defend was that no factual basis had been laid down regarding the requirement of the petitioner No.2 to use the tenanted premises; it was not specified as to which portion of the premises the petitioner No.2 was in possession of and what was he using the same for and; the petitioners/landlords could not give any explanation with regard to the allegation that the landlords already had availability of another suitable accommodation in the same premises which was recently vacated by one Joginder Singh and a site plan was filed by the tenant supporting this allegation. It was held that the issue of availability or not of any other reasonably suitable accommodation with the landlords, was a triable RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 3 of 21 issue. On the date the order allowing leave to defend was passed i.e on 16.11.2024, the appellant/tenant was directed to file written statement within the statutory period with at least 15 days advance copy to the opposite side. The matter was put up for filing of written statement/further proceedings on 14.01.2025.
3. After the leave to defend was allowed, the appellant/tenant in between the dates of hearing on 04.01.2025, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the petition fails to show the necessary ingredients required in a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. It did not mention the need, purpose or area required by the petitioners and also whether they do not have any other alternative, reasonably suitable premises with them or any of them, which are averments mandatory in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. It did not disclose the cause of action.
4. On 14.01.2025, it was pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to the Ld. ARC that he had not received any copy of the written statement till date. He submitted that in terms of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, the defence of the respondent be struck off and the judgment be passed in favour of the petitioner. On the same day, it was pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that his application Order 7 Rule 11 RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 4 of 21 CPC was pending. He also submitted that the respondent can file the written statement within 90 days and he sought time to address arguments on the aspect of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. Accordingly, the matter was fixed for 19.03.2025. The order sheet dated 19.03.2025 reads as under :
19.03.2025 Present: Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
1. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that he will straightaway address arguments on the application under O. 7 R.11 CPC.
2. Ld. counsel for the respondent is also directed to address arguments on the maintainability of the application. He seeks some time to address the same. Further, he submits that he has applied for certified copies of certain record pertaining to prior litigations between the parties.
3. Put up for arguments on the application under O. 7 R.11 CPC as well as for consideration on the prayer regarding order 8 R. 10 CPC, on 02.04.2025 at 12:00 noon.
Sd/-
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(WEST) 19.03.2025 (Emphasis added)
5. On 02.04.2025, arguments were heard on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and on the aspect of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. Vide the impugned order, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed and since no written statement was filed despite directions and sufficient time, the right of the respondent/tenant to file written RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 5 of 21 statement was closed. The challenge in this appeal is with regard to the order qua both the above provisions, on the following grounds:
(i) The Ld. ARC failed to correctly appreciate and apply the true facts and the law to the facts and circumstances of the present case. He erred in not observing that the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act has been filed without mentioning the facts or necessary "ingredients" which are laid down in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act for constituting the cause of action for filing the eviction petition.
(ii) The Ld. ARC erred in distinguishing the cases cited by the appellant.
He took note of case law which was totally inapplicable and out of context to the facts and circumstances before it. On a true and correct appreciation of facts and law he ought to have allowed the appellant/tenant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and ought to have rejected the petition of the respondents for lack of cause of action.
(iii) The Ld. ARC failed to peruse his earlier order wherein the inability of the appellant to file written statement in the case was recorded. A perusal whereof clearly shows that the appellant/tenant was unable to prepare and file the written statement because the appellant/tenant was not being furnished certified copies of the pleadings and documents of the previous litigation between the parties in respect of the same property, for the last more than 25 years. These were relevant in order to corroborate the defence of the appellant/tenant on the basis whereof the RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 6 of 21 appellant had been granted leave to contest by the Ld. ARC. In these circumstances the non-filing of the written statement by the appellant is for the reasons beyond his control and this should have been considered by the Ld. ARC.
(iv) The Ld. ARC ought not to have closed the right of the appellant to file written statement, since he failed to appreciate that the plea of the respondents under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC was premature as the deadline commences from the date of granting leave to defend and not from the date of service in cases where leave to defend is required to be sought.
6. Arguments were addressed by Mr. Mahesh K. Mehta, Ld. Counsel for the appellant/tenant and Mr. Shiv Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the respondents/landlords.
7. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant/tenant reiterated the averments made in the grounds of appeal. He also argued that in order to enable the appellant to file his proper written statement, the appellant immediately applied for certified copies of orders and pleadings in respect of the previous litigation in respect of the same tenanted premises by and between the parties in the present proceedings, in order to expose the falsehood of the respondents allegations in the eviction petition. However, the appellant was informed only in the month of March, 2025 RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 7 of 21 by the copying agency of the Court, that the record of the proceedings were weeded out. The certified copy forms and the notings thereon of the record room, filed with the appeal, clearly show that the Ld. ARC erred in closing the right to file written statement in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nankhu & Ors. MANU/SC/0264/2005, wherein it was held that mere technicalities cannot override substantial justice which require/give right to a litigant of being heard by presenting the defence available to a party in accordance with law. Therefore, so far as closure of the right of the appellant to present his written statement in the eviction proceedings is concerned, the same is totally untenable in law and is bound to be set aside.
8. Per contra, it was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that the present appeal was not maintainable. There is no infirmity in the order under appeal and the appeal has been filed only to delay the proceedings. It was also argued that the present appeal was not maintainable as the same is beyond the preview of Section 38 of the DRC Act. Reliance was placed upon the judgments in Vinod Kumar Chowdhry v. Narain Devi Taneja 1980 AIR SC 2012 and R.S. Bakshi and Anr v. H. K. Malhari and Anr. 20021AD (Delhi) 589. It was also submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 8 of 21 present appeal as per Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed with exemplary cost.
9. With regard to the maintainability of the appeal the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted as this is not an appeal against an order allowing or disallowing leave to defend under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The two judgments cited are on the aspect of whether a revision petition and not an appeal would lie against an order granting or refusing leave to defend under Section 25B of the DRC Act. Significantly, if an order passed by the Ld. ARC is not traceable to the special procedure prescribed under Section 25B of the DRC Act, the remedy of appeal under Section 38 of the DRC Act would be available to the parties. Thus, considering the nature of the order challenged, the present appeal is maintainable under Section 38 of the DRC Act.
DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 CPC
10. The appellant/tenant filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 04.01.2025 before the Ld. ARC, on the ground that the petition failed to show the necessary ingredients required in a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. It does not mention the need, purpose or area required by the respondents/landlords and also whether they do RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 9 of 21 not have any other alternative, reasonably suitable premises with them or any of them, which are mandatory averments in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. Where the plaint did not disclose a clear right to sue, power should be exercised under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
11. The Ld. ARC vide the impugned order while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh 2010 (2) SCC 15 has held that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was not maintainable as the provisions of CPC are not applicable to a proceeding under a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The view of the Ld. ARC cannot be accepted. In Prithipal Singh (supra), the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the provisions of Order 37 Rule 4 CPC are applicable to the Rent Act. The judgment is on the issue of applicability of Rule 23 of the DRC Rules to proceedings of leave to defend. It is settled law that once leave to defend is granted, the procedure to be followed in a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act is the same as applicable to other proceedings before the Rent Controller. This has been reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Director Directorate of Education & Anr. v. Mohd. Shamim & Ors. Neutral Citation 2019:DHC:6510-DB.
RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 10 of 2112. The Ld. ARC has also given his findings on merit with regard to the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, which however cannot be faulted with. A perusal of the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act shows that it clearly states that the tenanted premises were given on rent to the father of the appellant and that the father expired, after which the appellant is continuing as a tenant and the same have been locked for many years. The respondents had earlier filed a suit for mandatory injunction and mesne profit which was later withdrawn and an appropriate petition under Section 44 of the DRC Act was filed. Thereafter, a petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act was filed which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn on 23.12.2022. It was also specifically mentioned in the petition that petitioner No.2 Narender Singh is sitting ideal and although he is having a small portion, he wants to start business of his own for which he needs the property. Thus, the petition sets out the history of tenancy between the parties as also the bonafide requirement of the respondents/landlords. It was after consideration of the petition that the matter was proceeded with and thereafter, leave to defend was allowed. It has been rightly observed by the Ld. ARC that the evidence in the matter is yet to be led in order to explain the requirement of the appellant/landlord and that the deposition would be subject to the scrutiny of the cross-examination in order to verify the claim of bonafide requirement. It has also been rightly RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 11 of 21 observed by the Ld. ARC while dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC that whether or not the respondents/landlords have any other suitable accommodation is a matter of trial and is also a factor on the basis of which leave to defend has been granted to the appellant/ tenant. In view of the said observations, it cannot be said that the respondents/landlords have no cause of action for the petition to be dismissed in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. There is no infirmity found in the impugned order with regard to the observations given on merit qua the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the Ld. ARC who has rightly dismissed the same.
CLOSING OF THE RIGHT OF THE APPELLANT/TENANT TO FILE WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER ORDER 8 RULE 10 CPC
13. Order 8 Rule 1 CPC reads as under : -
ORDER 8 RULE 1 Written statement, set-off and counter-claim
1. Written Statement.--The Defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence:
Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.
ORDER 8 RULE 10 RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 12 of 21
10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.--Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up.
14. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku MANU / SC / 0264 / 2005, wherein it was held that Order 8 Rule 1 CPC being in the domain of the procedural law, it has to be held as directory and not mandatory. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
46. We sum up and briefly state our conclusions as under:-
............................
(iv) The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision spells out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time.
Though, the language of the proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII of the CPC is couched in negative form, it does not specify any penal consequences flowing from the non- compliance. The provision being in the domain of the Procedural Law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory. The power of the Court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is not completely taken away.
(v) Though Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is a part of Procedural Law and hence directory, keeping in view the need for expeditious trial of civil causes which persuaded the Parliament to enact the provision in its present form, it RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 13 of 21 is held that ordinarily the time schedule contained in the provision is to be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way of exception. A prayer for extension of time made by the defendant shall not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for asking, more so when the period of 90 days has expired. Extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception, for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and also be placed on record in writing, howsoever briefly, by the Court on its being satisfied. Extension of time may be allowed if it was needed to be given for the circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. Costs may be imposed and affidavit or documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case.
(Emphasis added)
15. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jamaluddin v. Nawabuddin and Ors. MANU/DE/1014/2023, has held that under Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC, the Court in its discretion would have the power to allow the defendant to file written statement even after expiry of the period of 90 days provided in Order 8 Rule 1. It was observed as under:
"4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would then rely upon the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N Vs. Union of India, reported as MANU/SC/0450/2005 : (2005) 6 SCC 344 and in particular para 21 thereof which holds as follows:-
"21. ..................In construing the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 and Rule 10, the doctrine of harmonious RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 14 of 21 construction is required to be applied. The effect would be that under Rule 10 Order 8, the court in its discretion would have the power to allow the defendant to file written statement even after expiry of the period of 90 days provided in Order 8 Rule 1. There is no restriction in Order 8 Rule 10 that after expiry of ninety days, further time cannot be granted. The court has wide power to "make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit".
Clearly, therefore, the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 providing for the upper limit of 90 days to file written statement is directory. Having said so, we wish to make it clear that the order extending time to file written statement cannot be made in routine. The time can be extended only in exceptionally hard cases. While extending time, it has to be borne in mind that the legislature has fixed the upper time-limit of 90 days. The discretion of the court to extend the time shall not be so frequently and routinely exercised so as to nullify the period fixed by Order 8 Rule 1."
5. In view of the ratio of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court extracted herein above and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 in the present appeal (the original plaintiff in the subject suit) does not oppose the relief prayed for, in the present appeal. It is observed that in view of the foregoing the issue involved in the present appeal is no longer res integra.
6. Further, it is also pertinent to observe that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent decision of Bharat Kalra Vs. Raj Kishan Chabra reported as MANU/SCOR/50514/2022 has also inter alia observed, that the delay in filing the written statement can be condoned, subject to compensating the plaintiff with costs. The relevant portion of the ratio is extracted hereinbelow:-
"1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court on 12.08.2021 whereby delay of 193 days in filing of the written statement was not condoned.RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 15 of 21
3. Admittedly, the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff is not the one which is governed by the Commercial Court Act, 2015. Therefore, the time limit for filing of the written statement under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory in view of the judgment of this Court reported as 'Kailash v. Nankhu' reported in MANU/SC/0264/2005 : (2005) 4 SCC 480.
4. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we find that the delay in filing of the written statement could very well be compensated with costs but denying the benefit of filing of the written statement is unreasonable.
5. Consequently, we allow the present appeal. The order passed by the High Court is set aside. The written statement already filed is taken on record.
6. We do hope that the trial Court shall expedite the decision of the suit keeping in view the old age of the plaintiff.
7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of."
7. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge and order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the learned Joint Registrar are set aside. The appellant is permitted to file the written statement in CS (OS) No. 115/2020, titled 'Nawabuddin Vs. Sh. Salahuddin & Ors', within a week from today, after serving an advance copy thereof to the other side; subject, however, to payment of compensatory costs of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only), to learned counsel appearing on behalf of Nawabuddin, respondent no. 1 herein (the original plaintiff in the subject suit)."
(Emphasis added)
16. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.
v. Dwarka Parshad MANU/DE/1263/2023, has held that:
"12. The judgments of the Supreme Court in 'Kailash vs. Nanhku and Ors', reported as MANU/SC/0264/2005 :RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 16 of 21
(2005) 4 SCC 480, 'Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N vs. Union of India', reported as MANU/SC/0450/2005 : (2005) 6 SCC 344 and 'Bharat Kalra vs. Raj Kishan Chabra' reported as MANU/SCOR/50514/2022, and the learned Division Bench of this Court in FA(OS) 149/2022 titled Jamaluddin vs. Nawabuddin & Ors." Neutral Citation Number - MANU/DE/1014/2023 : 2023/DHC/001211, rendered on 15.02.2023 have taken into consideration the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that procedure is a handmaid to justice and permitted the parties to file the written statement on compensatory costs.
13. Being bound by the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of the learned Division Bench of this Court, this Court deems it fit that the lapse of the petitioner/defendant in filing its written statement on time can be condoned, however, subject to compensatory costs as laid down by this Court in Jamaluddin (supra).
14. Apart from the costs of Rs. 25,000/-as imposed by the learned Trial Court, this Court deems it fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to burden the petitioner/defendant with additional costs of Rs. 25,000/-to be paid to respondent/plaintiff within four weeks from today.
15. Learned Trial Court is directed to take on record the written statement as and when filed, subject of course, to the aforesaid payment of costs and the costs which was imposed vide the impugned order."
17. The record of the Trial Court shows that in the proceeding sheet of 16.11.2024, on which date, the order allowing leave to defend was passed, the written statement was directed to be filed within the statutory period (thirty days) with at least 15 days advance copy being supplied to the opposite side. The matter was put up for filing of written statement/ RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 17 of 21 further proceedings on 14.01.2025. After the leave to defend was allowed, the tenant in between the dates of hearing, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 04.01.2025. On 14.01.2025, it was pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent/landlord that he had not received any copy of the written statement till date. He submitted that in terms of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC, the defence of the respondent be struck off and the judgment be passed in favour of the petitioner. On the same day, it was pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant/tenant that his application Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was pending. He also submitted that the respondent can file the written statement within 90 days and he sought time to address arguments on the aspect of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, the matter was fixed for 19.03.2025. On 02.04.2025, arguments were heard on the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and on the aspect of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. Vide the impugned order dated 25.04.2025, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed and since no written statement was filed, despite directions and sufficient time, the right of the respondent to file written statement was closed.
18. Pertinently, after the leave to defend was allowed on 16.11.2024, the written statement was to be filed within 30 days. However, the respondent did not do so till 25.04.2025, on which date his right to file RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 18 of 21 written statement was closed after there was a delay of 129 days.
19. With regard to the delay in filing the written statement, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant/tenant that the delay was because certified copies of the pleadings and judgment of a previous litigation which the appellant wanted to file with his written statement were applied for, because of which the written statement could not be filed. The appellant before this Court has filed the certified copy form and certified copy receipt dated 06.12.2024 and 07.03.2025. The said documents show that certified copies of the pleadings and judgment in suit No. 616/1999 titled Raj Mahajan v. Narender Singh had been applied for by him. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that he had applied for the certified copies on 06.12.2024 for the pleadings and judgment in suit No. 616/1999 titled Raj Mahajan v. Narender Singh which was filed by the appellant against the respondent No.2 seeking injunction restraining the respondent No.2 from forcibly dispossessing the tenant/appellant from the tenanted premises. The delivery date given for the certified copies was 11.12.2024. On 11.12.2024, the appellant was informed that the application was lying under objections. On 26.11.2024, the objections were removed by the appellant (as finds mentioned in the certified copy form). The appellant kept inquiring from the copying agency about the certified copies being RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 19 of 21 ready, however, he was not given the same. On 10.03.2025, the appellant was informed in writing on the reverse of the certified copy form that the records of suit No. 616/2019 titled Raj Mahajan v. Narender Singh date of decision 20.04.2005 Goshwara No. 373, have been destroyed during weeding out process on 19.06.2024. It is submitted that this fact about having applied for certified copies was apprised to the Ld. ARC on 19.03.2025 and this is why it is mentioned in the order sheet of the said date that it was submitted that he had applied for certified copy of certain records prior to the litigation between the parties.
20. The said certified copy forms and office notings there on, filed by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant before this Court support his version of having applied for certified copies of the said suit, which were informed to have been weeded out. It is evident from the order sheet dated 19.03.2025 (para 4 above), that the appellant submitted before the Ld. ARC that he had applied for certified copies of certain records of the prior litigation between the parties however, this fact was not considered by the Ld. ARC when closing the right of the appellant/tenant to file his written statement apparently because no documents were then produced in support of this averment before the Ld. ARC before 25.04.2025. The reason for delay in filing the written statement is supported by RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 20 of 21 documents filed in this Court. This Court is of the opinion that the delay of about 129 days for the reasons stated, can be condoned however, subject to compensatory costs. Thus, in the interest of justice, the part of the impugned order closing the right of the appellant/tenant to file written statement, is set aside and one opportunity is given to the appellant to file the written statement before the Ld. ARC within two weeks from the date of this judgment, subject to compensatory costs of a total sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) to be paid by the appellant/tenant to the respondents/landlords. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. Copy of this judgment be sent back with the Trial Court record. Appeal file be consigned to the Record Digitally signed Room post compliance. by ADITI ADITI CHOUDHARY Announced in Open Court CHOUDHARY Date: 2025.12.01 on 1st day of December, 2025 18:19:59 +0530 (Dr. Aditi Choudhary ) Rent Control Tribunal (West) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi RCT No. 14/25 Raj Mahajan v. Manmohan Kaur & Ors. Page 21 of 21