The Delhi High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an order of the Additional Rent Controller that refused to allow the petitioner to file additional documents under Section 151 CPC after the leave to defend application had already been filed and fixed for hearing. The Court held that the power under Section 151 CPC is discretionary but cannot be invoked to circumvent the mandatory 15-day period for filing leave to defend under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, absent a satisfactory explanation for delayed production and a showing that the documents raise a triable issue.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Manpreet Singh, is a legal representative of the original tenant, late Amarjeet Singh, in respect of Shop No. 5175, Basant Road, Paharganj, New Delhi. The respondent, Parmod Kumar Gupta, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act). The petitioner filed an application for leave to defend on 30.03.2026 and later sought to place additional documents on record under Section 151 CPC to support his defence.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is the legal representative of late Amarjeet Singh, the original tenant of Shop No. 5175.
- The respondent instituted an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B DRC Act, being RC ARC No. 690/2025.
- The petitioner filed an application for leave to defend on 30.03.2026.
- The petitioner subsequently filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking to place on record: (a) passport and voter ID of Smt. Rajpreet Kaur (real sister of respondent No. 1); (b) Aadhar, passport, voter ID of late Smt. Rajdeep Kaur (real sister of respondent No. 1); (c) death certificate of Rajdeep Kaur; (d) passports of the legal representatives of late Smt. Rajdeep Kaur; (e) original photographs of the mezzanine floor of Shop No. 5175; (f) photographs of Shop No. 5176 (owned by petitioner but kept closed); (g) copies of electoral rolls 2020 and 2002 showing the petitioner’s address as 5174, Shyam Lal building, Paharganj.
- The petitioner’s principal justification for delayed production was that some documents had become available only subsequently and considerable time was consumed in procuring them.
- The Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dismissed the Section 151 CPC application vide order dated 06.07.2026, holding that the documents were available at the time of filing the leave to defend application and no satisfactory explanation for delay was provided.
Procedural History
- 30.03.2026: Petitioner filed application for leave to defend.
- Before 03.08.2026: Petitioner filed application under Section 151 CPC to place additional documents on record.
- 06.07.2026: ARC passed order dismissing the Section 151 CPC application (impugned order).
- Present petition under Article 227 filed challenging the ARC order (exact date not specified in judgment).
- 15.09.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the ARC order dated 06.07.2026 and to be permitted to place the additional documents on record.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether, at the stage when the application for leave to defend had already been filed and fixed for arguments, the petitioner could be permitted to introduce additional documents under Section 151 CPC to supplement his defence.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the documents were relevant and supported the defence already raised; that some documents had become available only later and delay was explained by the time taken to procure them; that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent as the matter was still at the leave to defend stage; and reliance was placed on decisions of this Court permitting subsequent material where genuinely unavailable earlier and duly explained.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that the petitioner was the sole occupant and tenant; that the documents sought were neither filed with the leave to defend application nor with the rejoinder despite ample opportunity; that the objection of misjoinder/non-joinder had already been addressed in the reply to leave to defend; that the landlord is not obliged to implead every legal heir of a deceased tenant; and that the petitioner’s assertion of recent availability was unsubstantiated and amounted to an attempt to delay adjudication.
The Court's Analysis
The Court noted that Section 151 CPC confers discretionary power to advance the ends of justice but held that this power cannot be used to circumvent the procedure prescribed under Section 25-B DRC Act, particularly where the statutory period for disclosing facts constituting the defence has already expired. It emphasized that the Court must examine not only the abstract relevance of the documents but also whether the petitioner furnished a satisfactory explanation for their non-production at the appropriate stage and whether the documents are necessary for determination of any triable issue.
The Court found the petitioner’s explanation to be wholly general, lacking specifics as to when each document came into his possession, from whom obtained, or circumstances preventing earlier production. The mere assertion that documents had “recently been made available” was insufficient.
Further, the documents sought to be introduced did not advance the petitioner’s case beyond pleas already raised in the leave to defend application: identity documents and death certificate aimed to substantiate a plea to implead legal heirs, which the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Kohli v. Rakesh Jain held unnecessary; photographs of the mezzanine floor and Shop No. 5176 merely corroborated pleas already made; electoral rolls supported the plea of alternative accommodation already pleaded.
The Court relied on Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh and Madhu Gupta v. Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd to stress that allowing amendments after the leave to defend stage would destroy the sanctity of the 15-day period. It concluded that no jurisdictional error, perversity or material irregularity was shown in the ARC’s exercise of discretion warranting interference under Article 227.
The Verdict
The petitioner failed; the revision petition was dismissed and the ARC order dated 06.07.2026 was upheld. No costs or other relief were granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Strict Adherence to Statutory Timelines
Practitioners must ensure that all documents intended to be relied upon in a leave to defend application under Section 25-B DRC Act are filed within the 15-day period; subsequent production under Section 151 CPC is not a matter of right and requires a specific, satisfactory explanation for delay.
No Relaxation Without Satisfactory Explanation
A vague claim that documents became available later is insufficient; the petitioner must disclose when each document was obtained, from whom, and the circumstances that prevented earlier filing.
Documents Must Raise a Triable Issue
Even if delay is explained, the documents must be material to a contested issue; they cannot merely corroborate pleas already raised in the leave to defend application.
