Smt. Nafeesa & Ors. vs Smt. Rajwati
2014 Latest Caselaw 3117 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         R.C.Rev. No. 453/2013
%                                                    15th July , 2014

SMT. NAFEESA & ORS.                                 ......Appellants
                  Through:               Mr. Ajay Bahl, Advocate.


                          VERSUS

SMT. RAJWATI                                               ...... Respondent
                          Through:

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

CM No.11152/2014 (for preponement of date of hearing)

       Application for preponement is allowed.
       CM stands disposed of.


RC.Rev. 453/2013

1.     This petition under Section 25(B)(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958

has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Additional Rent

Controller dated 6.8.2013 by which the eviction petition for bonafide

necessity has been decreed by dismissing the application for leave to defend.



RC Rev. 453/2013                                                               Page 1 of 3
 2.     The only ground urged before this Court on behalf of the

petitioner/tenant is that the need for which the bonafide necessity petition

was filed was for the business of the son of the respondent/landlord, but

since the son is already involved in various criminal cases, there would be

no immediate need of the suit premises. It is prayed that therefore the leave

to defend ought to be granted.


3.     When the counsel for the petitioner was put a query whether this

ground was taken in that application for leave to defend, the counsel had no

option but to concede that no such ground was urged in the leave to defend

application filed. Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal

Singh (dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 has held that the period of 15

days for filing of leave to defend application under Delhi Rent Control Act is

sacrosanct and that there cannot be filing of leave to defend application after

the statutory 15 days period alongwith the application for condonation of

delay. What has been thus effectively held in Prithipal Singh's case (supra)

is that if the leave to defend application is permitted after 15 days the same

would destroy the sanctity period of 15 days as provided under Section 25B

which is an exhaustive procedure with respect to leave to defend application.

If the application for leave to defend cannot be filed after 15 days, fresh

RC Rev. 453/2013                                                            Page 2 of 3
 grounds not found in the leave to defend application cannot be taken with

consideration, otherwise, the same would be effectively allowing

consideration of grounds which have been pleaded after 15 days though it

could have been pleaded within 15 days only.


4.     In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is

therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




JULY 15, 2014                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib