Tis Hazari District Court: In an appeal against an eviction judgment passed under Section 14(1)(a) and (2), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act), the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Anju Bajaj Chandna, J., dismissed the appeal, holding that ignorance of law or a bona fide misconception regarding limitation cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning an inordinate delay of over 2 years in filing the appeal. The Court further held that a tenant who fails to strictly comply with the order passed under Section 15(1), DRC Act is not entitled to the statutory protection under Section 14(2), and that the objection regarding prior permission under Section 19, Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 (Slum Act), having not been raised at the earliest stage, stood waived.
Background
Both original parties to the dispute died during the course of the litigation, the appellant, is represented by her legal heir, while the respondent, the original landlord, is represented by his four legal heirs.
The dispute arose from eviction proceedings instituted by the landlord under Section 14(1)(a) and (b), DRC Act in respect of a shop at Nai Sarak, Delhi. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) while rejecting the ground under Section 14(1)(b). Thereafter, the tenant was denied the statutory protection under Section 14(2), DRC Act on account of non-compliance with the order passed under Section 15(1). Aggrieved, the tenant preferred the present appeal along with an application seeking condonation of a delay of over 2 years in challenging the eviction judgment and questioned the maintainability of the eviction proceedings for want of prior permission under Section 19, Slum Act.
Analysis and decision
The Court noted that the tenant’s plea of being under a bona fide impression that the appeal could be filed only after the order under Section 14(2), DRC Act was misconceived, as the eviction judgment dated 24 August 2023 had finally decided the matter. The Court observed that ignorance of law and bona fide mistake cannot be valid grounds for granting condonation of delay particularly when there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The Court relied on Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 92, wherein it was found that for condonation of delay, each day delay must be explained with reasonable explanation and that the Court should not be pedantic in their approach while condoning the delay. The Court opined that the appellant failed to prove the delay in filing this appeal and hence dismissed the application under Section 5, Limitation Act.
The Court rejected the tenant’s contention that the eviction proceedings were a nullity for want of prior permission under Section 19, Slum Act, holding that the tenant had neither challenged the trial court’s order dated 2 September 2022 rejecting the plea nor raised any specific objection in the written statement. Relying on Satender Jain v. Satya Narain Sanjiv Gupta, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4436, the Court reiterated that the requirement of prior permission under Section 19 can be waived if the tenant fails to raise the objection at the earliest stage.
Upholding the order dated 4 August 2025, the Court noted that the tenant had failed to comply with the order dated 5 March 2015 passed under Section 15(1), DRC Act, and was therefore not entitled to the benefit under Section 14(2). The Court relied on Mohd. Idris v. Sadat Ali Khan, CM (M) 1022/2013, where the Delhi High Court observed that if a tenant fails to pay or deposit rent as required under Section 15, an order for recovery of possession may be passed against him, describing this, “if I may use a cricketing term,” as the “reverse sweep” of a tenant’s entitlement to protection under Section 14(2).
The Court accepted the landlord’s contention that an order passed under Section 15(1), DRC Act requires strict compliance, and that the tenant was obliged to deposit the rent before the Rent Controller monthly. The Court noted that instead of complying with the order, the tenant chose to file separate petitions under Section 27, DRC Act and deposited the rent belatedly on several occasions, without ever bringing the alleged refusal by the landlord to accept rent to the notice of the Court.
The Court held that the tenant had violated the mandate of Section 15(1), DRC Act, by failing to deposit the rent in the prescribed manner and within time and therefore was not entitled to the statutory protection under the Act. Finding no illegality or impropriety in the order dated 4 August 2025, the Court dismissed the appeal.
[Ram Ditti v. Rahul Varun, RCT No. 94/2025, decided on 29-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the appellant: Prabhat Ranjan, Simran Gublani
For the respondent: Sahib Gurdeep Singh