Delhi District Court
Smt. Bimla Devi Jain vs Vijay Kumar on 11 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Ms. TARUNPREET KAUR
Administrative Civil Judge- Commercial Civil Judge-
Additional Rent Controller
South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi
RC ARC 21/25
BIMLA DEVI JAIN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR
Smt. Bimla Devi Jain
W/o Late Sh. Jain Dass Jain
R/o A-79, Sector 51, Noida, UP
...........petitioner
versus
Sh. Vijay Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Anant Ram
Shop No. 46, Central Road, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014
...........respondent
ORDER
1. Vide this order, the application filed on behalf of the respondent for supply of copy of petition, condonation of delay made in filing the application seeking leave to defend and to compute the period of limitation from the date of knowledge, shall be disposed of.
2. The present petition has been filed under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 RC ARC 21/25 BIMLA DEVI JAIN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by TARUNPREET Page No. 1 of 11 TARUNPREET KAUR KAUR Date:
2026.03.11 14:55:18 +0530 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC") whereby, the petitioner has sought eviction of the respondent from property i.e., shop bearing no. 46, Ground Floor, Central Road, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014 (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted/suit property/premises").
3. It has been stated in the present application that the respondent came to know about the newspaper publication regarding the present petition on 14.10.2025 through a friend and that he had no prior knowledge of the present matter as no summons had been received by him. It has been further stated that the respondent had suffered a paralytic attack and he was not attending his shop (situated at the tenanted premises) for last three months. It has been further stated that the newspaper publication is dated 28.09.2025 while the respondent got to know about it on 14.10.2025, and therefore, the period of limitation should commence from the date of knowledge and not from the date of publication. It has been further stated that the service by way of publication in newspaper should have been the last resort and the court ought to have satisfied itself that summons had been issued at the alternate address of the respondent before proceedings ahead with newspaper publication. It has been further stated that, in the present circumstances of the case, the date of newspaper publication could not be considered to operate as date of starting of period of limitation and on account of respondent's medical condition/paralytic attack, the date of knowledge of publication i.e., 14.10.2025, be considered as date for computing period of limitation to file the application seeking leave to defend.
RC ARC 21/25 Digitally
BIMLA DEVI JAIN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR signed by
TARUNPREET
Page No. 2 of 11
TARUNPREET KAUR
KAUR Date:
2026.03.11
14:55:23
+0530
3.1 Therefore, with the aforesaid grounds it has been prayed
that the delay made in filing the application seeking leave to defend be condoned, as the same had been caused for the reason beyond the control of the respondent.
4. Reply to present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.
5. Arguments on the present application have been heard and the record has been perused. It was submitted by Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent that the summons in the present matter had first been issued with respect to petition under section 14(1)(a) DRC Act and the petition had eventually been amended and summons had then been issued for petition under section 14(1)(e) DRC Act. He further submitted that thereafter, summons had been issued by way of publication in newspaper and the service by way of publication is not to be made in a mechanical manner. He further submitted that the shop in question was locked at the relevant time and the respondent had no knowledge about the present petition and the statuary period to file application seeking leave to defend had never actually commenced in the given circumstances of the case.
5.1 A strong objection had been raised to the present application by Learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the intimation with respect to the present petition had been received by the respondent on the date of service of ordinary process itself as his servant was present at the suit property at that RC ARC 21/25 BIMLA DEVI JAIN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by TARUNPREET Page No. 3 of 11 TARUNPREET KAUR KAUR Date:
2026.03.11 14:55:28 +0530 time. He further submitted that it has vaguely been stated by respondent that he got to know about the newspaper publication through a friend while name of said friend has not even been stated. He further submitted that the application seeking leave to defend has been filed with a delay of 15 days and the same cannot be condoned.
5.2 Authorities relied upon by the respondent in support of his submissions have been perused.
6. First and foremost, it is relevant to discuss as to whether any power to condone delay made in filing application seeking leave to defend is available with Rent Controller under DRC Act.
The law with respect to condonation of delay in filing of application seeking leave to defend is very much clear. The statutory period of 15 days for moving the said application is absolute and there is no question of condonation of delay. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through its LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 that no application for condonation of delay could be entertained by the Rent Controller as provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 could not be attracted. It was also laid down that neither the Rent Controller nor the High Court has power to condone the delay of even one day in applying for leave to defend.
6.1 Further guideline has been laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled Director Directorate of RC ARC 21/25 BIMLA DEVI JAIN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by Page No. 4 of 11 TARUNPREET TARUNPREET KAUR KAUR Date:
2026.03.11 14:55:34 +0530 Education And Another Vs. Mohd. Shamim And Others. In this case, the Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court addressed the petition challenging the Hon'ble Supreme Court's earlier authority as laid down in Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (2010) 2 SCC 15 and analysed as to whether Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act empowers the High Court to set aside eviction order when delay in filing for leave to defend is justified and beyond the tenant's control. It has been held that the High Court holds the authority to condone such delays under specified conditions and that "law" encompasses broader legal principles beyond the specific provisions of the Rent Act, thereby granting the High Court room to consider condonation of delays if justified. This authority has nowhere laid down that Rent Controller also has authority or power to condone such delays and it has only explored the scope for High Court to deal with such applications. It has specifically been stated that High Court can condone delays made in filing application seeking leave to defend under Rent Act if specified conditions are satisfied and it could not be assumed that the same power has also been conferred upon Rent Controller.
6.2 Also, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a recent case titled Pradeep Malik Vs. Chander Dhingra (2023) that "the law as regards the mandatory nature of filing the leave to defend by the tenant within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of service of summons is now well settled. The said period is 'sacrosanct'."RC ARC 21/25
BIMLA DEVI JAIN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by Page No. 5 of 11 TARUNPREET TARUNPREET KAUR KAUR Date:
2026.03.11 14:55:39 +0530
7. Hence, this court, being the court of Additional Rent Controller, has no power under DRC Act to condone delay made in filing the application seeking leave to defend.
8. It shall now be discussed as to whether service by way of publication in newspaper is a proper service in eviction petition filed under section 14(1)(e) DRC Act. If so, from what date the period of limitation would be computed in such cases? Therefore, the guidelines and principles regarding service of summons by way of newspaper publication in eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) DRC Act are relevant to be discussed in given circumstances of the case, and the same are as under:-
i) With respect to eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, the legal position is very much clear that, the cases where service could not be effected upon tenant/respondent by way of ordinary process as prescribed for such petitions, the next proper mode is to get the service effected by way of publication in newspaper. It is also pertinent to state that service by way of affixation is not a proper service in such cases.
ii) In case tenant/respondent is not available at the tenanted premises or the tenanted premises are locked, the service of process by way of newspaper publication is a proper service.
iii) If the tenanted premises are locked or the tenant/respondent is not available at the tenanted RC ARC 21/25 BIMLA DEVI JAIN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by Page No. 6 of 11 TARUNPREET TARUNPREET KAUR KAUR Date:
2026.03.11 14:55:44 +0530 premises, there is no obligation upon the petitioner/landlord to furnish alternate/fresh address of tenant/respondent for service of process, nor is it required for the court to ensure that any alternate address is furnished. Due compliance would be deemed to have been made by way of publication in newspaper in such a case.
iv) When service is effected by way of newspaper publication, the stipulated period to file application seeking leave to defend would be computed from the date of such publication (as held in case titled "Vijay Kumar Vs. Shanti Naraian", 1996 (1) RCR 102). And, in such a case, tenant/respondent cannot plead and contend that the limitation period be computed from the date when he/she got to know about the publication.
v) Further, in cases of service by newspaper publication, the tenant/respondent cannot either plead that he has not been provided with a copy of the petition and the prerogative becomes his to procure copy of the same.
vi) It was held in case titled "S. Mohinder Pal Singh Vs. Uttam Kaur Puri", 1997 (1) RCR (Rent) 314, that the objection of the tenant, that the special procedure for service prescribed under section 25 B had not been followed, was of no consequence when summons were sent twice through registered post and Process Server and the same were received back with report that the tenant was available and the summons had been refused and RC ARC 21/25 BIMLA DEVI JAIN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by Page No. 7 of 11 TARUNPREET TARUNPREET KAUR KAUR Date:
2026.03.11 14:55:50 +0530 thereafter summons had been served through substituted service.
vii) The reason behind the above-stated principles/guidelines is that the tenant/respondent is supposed to be in possession of the tenanted premises and in case he is not, the landlord cannot be made to bear consequences/drawbacks of the same when the premises concerned are required by him for his bona fide need, and for which a summary eviction procedure has been provided.
9. Now, the above-stated guidelines would be discussed in light of facts and circumstances of the present matter, the contentions raised and grounds put forth on behalf of the respondent regarding service in the matter and with respect to seeking condonation of delay-
i) The notice in the present matter had first been issued vide order dated 12.06.2025 for petition filed under section 14(1)(a) DRC Act. Eventually, an application seeking amendment of the present petition had been filed on behalf of the petitioner to state the correct provision, i.e., section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, under which the eviction of respondent has been sought. The said application had bene allowed, order dated 12.06.2025 had been recalled and fresh summons, as pre the prescribed proforma for petition under section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, had been issued vide order dated 16.07.2025. The said process had RC ARC 21/25 BIMLA DEVI JAIN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by Page No. 8 of 11 TARUNPREET TARUNPREET KAUR KAUR Date:
2026.03.11 14:55:55 +0530 been received back unserved with the report that servant of respondent was found to be available at the tenanted premises.
ii) It is relevant to state at this juncture, that the present petition is not suffering from any defect for the reason that the same had inadvertently been filed initially mentioning the wrong provision and that the order as to issuance of summons for the wrong provision had been recalled. No prejudice has been suffered by the respondent by reason of the same.
iii) Further, considering the report received, summons/notice of the present petition had been directed to be issued upon the respondent by way of publication in newspaper. The respondent cannot, in such a case say that this court should have ensured that service could not be effected upon alternate address of respondent before proceeding ahead with service by way of newspaper publication. No such compliance was required to be made by the respondent, or by the court and the contention raised by the respondent that the service by newspaper publication has been made in a mechanical manner, is without substance. When respondent was not found to be available at the tenanted premises, the service made by newspaper publication could not be said to be improper service.RC ARC 21/25
BIMLA DEVI JAIN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by Page No. 9 of 11 TARUNPREET TARUNPREET KAUR KAUR Date:
2026.03.11 14:56:02 +0530
iv) The date of newspaper publication i.e., 28.09.2025, would be considered to be the date of service of notice upon the respondent and the respondent was supposed to file his application seeking leave to defend within the stipulated period from the said date.
v) Very vaguely and conveniently, it has been stated that the respondent got to know about the newspaper publication on 14.10.2025 through a friend. So, respondent's friend informed him about the notice of present petition published in newspaper, however, his employee/servant, under whom the respondent has left possession of the tenanted premises, did not inform him about the process server, about the summons and the information given by him to the process server? Indeed, the said report on process is not being considered with respect to service of process, nevertheless, the same reflects the frivolity of contentions raised by the respondent.
vi) The respondent cannot plead that the period of limitation to file application seeking leave to defend is to be computed from the date of his becoming aware about the newspaper publication, as, if such a flexible and indefinite interpretation would be given, the whole purpose of petition under section 14(1)(e) DRC Act and the statutory period to file application seeking leave to defend, would get defeated.RC ARC 21/25
BIMLA DEVI JAIN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR Digitally signed by Page No. 10 of 11 TARUNPREET TARUNPREET KAUR KAUR Date:
2026.03.11 14:56:07 +0530
10. Thus, the application seeking leave to defend filed on 28.10.2025, has not been filed within the stipulated period of 15 days from the date of newspaper publication on 28.09.2025. It has been discussed already that this court has no authority to condone such delays. The present application seeking supply of copy of petition, condonation of delay made in filing the ap- plication seeking leave to defend and to compute the period of limitation from the date of knowledge, stands dismissed and disposed of.
11. In view thereof, no consideration is required on application seeking leave to defend filed on behalf of the respondent and consequently, the averments made in the present petition are being deemed to be admitted. The present petition filed on behalf of the petitioner accordingly, stands allowed. The respondent is, accordingly, directed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e., shop bearing no. 46, Ground Floor, Central Road, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014 (as shown in red colour in site plan filed with the present petition). The petitioner shall not file execution petition for eviction of respondent from the tenanted premises before expiry of period of six months from the date of this order.
12. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court Digitally signed
by
TARUNPREET TARUNPREET
on 11th of March, 2026 KAUR KAUR
Date: 2026.03.11
14:56:13 +0530
(TARUNPREET KAUR)
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC,
South-East District, Saket Courts
RC ARC 21/25
BIMLA DEVI JAIN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR
Page No. 11 of 11