Delhi High Court - Orders
The Salvation Army India Through ... vs Surinder Kumar Chhabra on 22 May, 2026
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 119/2026
THE SALVATION ARMY INDIA THROUGH AUTHORISED
REPRESENTATIVE MR TARSEM MASIH .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shalini Sharma and Ms. Shilpa,
Advocates.
versus
SURINDER KUMAR CHHABRA .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 22.05.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 35788/2026 (exemption) & CM APPL. 23918/2026 (exemption) & CM APPL. 23919/2026 (exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of accordingly.
CM APPL. 35587/2026 (early hearing)
3. The present application under Section 151 of the CPC filed on behalf of the petitioner/applicant seeks the following prayers: -
"a) Kindly allow the present application of early hearing and list the matter as early as possible for the reasons mentioned in the application.
b) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.b) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 22:53:45
4. In view of the averments made in the application and in the interest of justice, the same is allowed and disposed of.
5. The matter is taken up for hearing for today itself.
RC.REV. 119/2026 & CM APPL. 23917/2026(Stay)
6. The present petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (for short, 'DRCA'), seeks the following prayers: -
"a) Set aside the eviction order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Rent Controller in Eviction Petition No. RC ARC 542/2025;
b) Stay the operation and execution of the impugned eviction judgment/ order dated 17.10.2025 till the pendency of the present Revision Petition; and
c) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
7. By virtue of the captioned petition filed under Section 25B(8) of the DRCA, the petitioner/tenant seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller-02, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in RC ARC 542/2025 filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA whereby, an eviction order was passed against the petitioner in respect of demised premises, i.e., Property bearing Shop No.1 at 1739, Lakshami Narayan Street, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi.
8. The subject eviction petition was filed by the respondent on the ground of bonafide requirement of his family members and himself, and particularly, for his son, Manas Chhabra. It was stated that the petitioner is opening a guest house at the first floor of aforesaid property which has separate stairs and This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 22:53:45 subject shop and shops No.2 and 3 are required by the respondent for the purpose of opening a restaurant and his son will also assist him in the said business. It was stated that the respondent did not have any other suitable alternate accommodation for commercial purpose at his disposal.
9. The subject eviction petition was filed on 29.08.2025. Summons were issued by learned ARC to the petitioner/tenant on 08.09.2025. In the impugned order, it has been recorded that the petitioner was served through its in-charge, namely Gurcharan Masih on 17.09.2025. However, no application seeking leave to defend was filed by the petitioner in terms of Section 25B of the DRCA.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned ARC has not considered the fact that the respondent is not the owner of the property and the ownership documents filed by the respondent along with the eviction petition are pertaining to property bearing No. 2, situated at Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi, and not Shop No.1 which is demised premises. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not a tenant under DRCA as the demised premises were donated by the then lease holder in 1960 to the petitioner, and since then, the petitioner is in undisputed possession of the property. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the property since 1960, and therefore, has become owner of the subject property by way of adverse possession. It is further submitted that the respondent has not filed any document before the learned ARC to show that the property is freehold and he has failed to show that the property has been converted from lease hold to freehold as the same was initially a leasehold property.
11. The impugned eviction order dated 17.10.2025 passed by learned ARC This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 22:53:45 reads thus: -
"Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent. Taken on record.
As per record, the respondent has been served through its In- charge namely Gurcharan Masih on 17.09.2025, however, application for leave to defend has not been filed in terms of section 25 B of DRC Act.
It is further observed that as per section 25-8 ( 4) of DRC Act, if the respondent/tenant fails to obtain the leave to defend, the statement made by the landlord in the application of eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall entitled to an eviction order. This was further reiterated by Hon 'ble Apex Court in the judgment of "Prithipal Singh vs. Satpal Singh (2010) 2 SCC 15. Again on the perusal of the record , it is clear that petitioner has placed on record sale deed as well one gift deed to establish her ownership in the subject premises. Again, in the sale deed itself the name of tenants in the property in question have been mentioned which includes the name of the respondent. There is no requirement for going in question of bona fide requirement' of the applicant in view of the discussion in the proceedings paragraphs.
In view of the aforesaid discussion , being satisfied the eviction order is passed against the respondent in respect of property bearing no. Shop no. 1 at 1739, Lakshami Narayan Street, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan.
The respondent/tenant shall not be evicted from the subject premises for the period of 6 months from date of order as provided u/s 14 (7) of DRC Act.
File be consigned to the record room."
12. In the present petition, there is absolutely no explanation given as to why the application seeking leave to defend in terms of Section 25B of the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 22:53:45 DRCA could not be filed by the petitioner before the learned ARC within the stipulated time. A perusal of the record would reflect that the summons had been served on the petitioner through its in-charge on 17.09.2025, and the petitioner had entered appearance before learned ARC on 17.10.2025. Admittedly, no application seeking leave to defend or seeking condonation of delay to file the same was preferred before learned ARC. The period of limitation for filing the application within 15 days is mandatory and even otherwise, the learned ARC after perusal of the records and satisfying itself with the ownership of the subject premises had passed the impugned order.
13. Learned Division Bench of this Court in Director Directorate of Education and Another v. Mohd. Shamim & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11490, had observed that this Court in exercise of powers under proviso to Section 25B(8) can set aside the order of eviction passed on account of non- filing of leave to defend within prescribed time only if the tenant passes the dual test of being prevented by reasons beyond control from applying for leave to defend within prescribed time and if makes out a substantial case for consideration of the application for leave to defend. The relevant observations made by the learned Division Bench in Mohd. Shamim (supra) read as under: -
"25. We, therefore, hold that merely because the Controller has passed an order of eviction in a proceeding governed under Section 25B, on failure of the tenant to, within the prescribed time, apply for leave to defend and merely because the Controller vide Prithpal Singh supra has been held to be not empowered to recall the said order, would not prevent this Court from, in exercise of powers under proviso to Section 25B(8), considering once a case for the landlord to be not entitled to an order of eviction to be deemed admission following nonfiling of leave to defend within the prescribed time, the said order cannot be said to have been made according to law and would qualify This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 22:53:45 as being contrary to law and liable to be set aside.
26. Having held so, we answer the question no. (A) framed in the referral order in the affirmative and with the condition that this Court would be empowered to set aside the order of eviction only if the tenant passes the dual test of prevented by reasons beyond control from applying for leave to defend within the prescribed time (as distinct from every default) and if makes out a substantial case for consideration of the application for leave to defend. We, however, in deference to Prithipal Singh supra choose/opt to not answer the question (B) framed in the referral order."
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court has contended that the respondent is not the owner of the property in question as the demised premises are shop no. 1 at 1739, GF, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi, whereas the ownership documents filed by the respondent are pertaining to property bearing No. 2, situated at Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi.
15. It is pertinent to note that in the eviction petition filed by the respondent, it is stated that the latter is owner of property bearing Shop No. 1 at 1739, Lakshami Narayan Street, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi, and other owners who had been named in the registered sale deed have been occupying their respective portions and using the said portions in terms of oral settlement among the purchasers of said shops and portions. It is further stated in the eviction petition by the respondent that he intends to open a guest house at the first floor of the said property, which has separate stairs for the first floor. It is stated that the shop in question-"demised premises" and other shops, i.e., shop No.2 and shop No.3, are required by the respondent for the purpose of opening a restaurant, and that his son will assist him in the said business. Thus, it is clear that the property No.2 comprises of other shops including shop No.1, i.e., the demised premises. Therefore, the contention of This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 22:53:45 learned counsel for the petitioner that the ownership chain has been shown with respect to property bearing No.2 and not shop No.1, is without merit.
16. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the Ownership Chain of property bearing No.2 situated at Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi, measuring 829 sq. yds. comprised in Khasra no. 923/838/416-404 placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioner and it is submitted that said document has been obtained from the Office of Sub-Registrar-3 Central, and same has been relied upon to show that from 1969 onwards, the ownership chain of property bearing no. 2 situated at Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi are not available and the property was sold in 2003 without getting converted from leasehold to freehold.
17. So far as the claim of the petitioner that the respondent is not the owner of the demised premises as the property was sold in 2003 without being converted from lease hold to freehold, it is pertinent to note that a sale deed was placed on record along with the eviction petition, and in para 3 of the said document, it is stated that the subject property is under tenancy of certain tenants and the name of the petitioner is mentioned therein as "Solution Army". It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has not been able to place on record any document or material in support of its claim that the subject property had been donated to the petitioner.
18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the requirement of dual test as held by the learned Division Bench in Mohd. Shamim (supra). Neither the petitioner has been able to demonstrate reasons beyond its control for not applying for leave to defend within prescribed time nor any substantial case for consideration of the application for leave to defend has been made out. Thus, This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 22:53:45 no interference with the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller-02, Central Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in RC ARC 542/2025 is called for, and the same is accordingly upheld.
19. The captioned petition is dismissed and disposed of.
20. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
21. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA, J MAY 22, 2026/bsr/ns This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/05/2026 at 22:53:45