S. 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Circumvent Summary Scheme Under S. 25-B DRC Act By Belatedly Supplementing Leave To Defend: Delhi High Court

"The summary procedure envisaged under Section 25-B DRC Act cannot be bypassed under Section 151 CPC to grant successive opportunities to the petitioners to supplement or improve upon their application for leave to defend." Delhi High Court has held that a tenant cannot invoke the inherent powers of a civil court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to bypass the summary mechanism under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and repeatedly supplement an application for leave to defend.

Justice Ajay Digpaul, in a judgment delivered on October 27, 2026, ruled that subsequent events can be placed on record only when they meet the stringent threshold of completely eclipsing the landlord’s bona fide requirement.

The respondents instituted an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act seeking possession of a commercial shop situated at Chandni Chowk, Delhi. After the petitioners filed their application for leave to defend and the matter was posted for final arguments, the tenants moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking to place on record purported subsequent events, including judicial records of eviction petitions against other occupants and photographs showing to-let banners. The Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application on October 6, 2026, leading the tenants to challenge the order before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Whether a tenant facing summary eviction proceedings can invoke Section 151 CPC to place additional documents and alleged subsequent events on record after the filing of the leave to defend application?

Whether the withdrawal of other eviction petitions and unverified photographs of rental banners constituted material subsequent events sufficient to completely eclipse the landlord’s projected bona fide requirement?

Section 151 CPC cannot be deployed to grant successive opportunities to improve leave to defend

Addressing the maintainability of the application, the Court observed that the summary procedure envisioned under Chapter IIIA of the Delhi Rent Control Act is self-contained and expeditious. Citing the Supreme Court’s verdict in Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh and the High Court's recent ruling in Manpreet Singh v. Parmod Kumar Gupta, the Bench underscored that the strict statutory period of 15 days for filing a leave to defend application cannot be diluted through procedural circumvention.

The Court highlighted that while inherent powers exist to meet the ends of justice, they cannot be converted into an instrument for dilatory tactics. Emphasizing the limits of Section 151 CPC, the Court held that the provision cannot be routinely invoked to bolster a defence once the leave to defend is already under consideration.

"The summary procedure under Section 25-B DRC Act does not contemplate successive opportunities to improve and/or supplement the grounds already disclosed in the application for leave to defend and inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked to circumvent the scheme of Section 25-B DRC Act," the Court observed.

Subsequent events must completely overshadow and extinguish landlord's bona fide need

The High Court held that the threshold for taking subsequent events on record in rent control proceedings is exceptionally high. Placing reliance on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, Justice Digpaul observed that subsequent developments must be of such dimension that the need propounded by the petitioning landlord is completely eclipsed.

The Bench distinguished earlier decisions where subsequent marriages, relocations, or availability of numerous alternate shops had genuinely fulfilled the landlord's requirement. In the present case, the Court observed that the landlords had explicitly disclosed in their pleadings that they sought the entire premises for their bona fide requirement and were pursuing multiple eviction petitions concurrently, leaving no room for surprise.

Publicly accessible records do not constitute newly discovered subsequent events

Rejecting the petitioners' justification that they discovered other litigations only during an online inspection of judicial records, the Court held that such explanations do not inspire confidence. The Court noted that court orders and records of disposals are readily accessible on the e-courts portal and could have been tracked diligently.

The Court also rejected the reliance placed by the tenants on Direction 2 of Chapter 22 of the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders. The Bench clarified that the requirement to disclose pending proceedings applies to the same property and does not mandate identical disclosures qua separate commercial shops located within the same larger building.

Section 19 DRC Act provides complete statutory remedy against unauthorized commercial re-letting

Evaluating the disputed photographs showing banners declaring the shops available for rent, the Bench held that bald assertions unsupported by any correspondence or proof of letting cannot derail eviction proceedings. The Court noted that five out of the eight alleged shops were still in the possession of litigating tenants, casting serious doubt on the authenticity of the material.

The Court added that the tenant’s apprehension regarding commercial exploitation is fully addressed by statutory safeguards. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, the Court observed that Section 19 of the DRC Act provides a complete right of restitution and repossession to dispossessed tenants if the landlord fails to occupy the premises or re-lets them after eviction.

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised as an appellate forum

Reiterating the established bounds of supervisory jurisdiction, the Court observed that under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not sit in appeal or correct routine errors of fact and law. The Court affirmed that intervention is confined strictly to cases where subordinate courts commit a patent illegality resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice.

Finding that the Trial Court had adopted a plausible and well-reasoned approach in refusing the tenants' application, the Court concluded that the tenant could not rely on the plea of lack of prejudice to the landlord to bypass the mandatory statutory procedure of Section 25-B.

The High Court affirmed the Trial Court's order dismissing the tenants' application under Section 151 CPC, holding that unverified developments and publicly accessible judicial records cannot be introduced belatedly to delay leave to defend arguments, especially when Section 19 DRC Act offers an adequate statutory remedy against subsequent re-letting.

Date of Decision: October 27, 2026