Section 25-B(4) provides that the tenant on whom summons is duly served in the form specified in the Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application and obtains leave from the Controller. In default of appearance or obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord shall be deemed to be admitted and the landlord shall be entitled to an eviction order [citation:2].

Yes. The Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh held that Section 25-B is a special code and the Rent Controller must follow it strictly. The procedure is a complete code in itself, and the requirements are mandatory [citation:2][citation:4].

No. The Rent Controller has no power to condone delay in filing the leave to defend application. Section 25-B is a complete code, and the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under this special procedure [citation:8][citation:15].

The Third Schedule prescribes the form of summons, which expressly states that the tenant must appear before the Controller within 15 days of service and obtain leave to contest. The Third Schedule is part of the Act itself [citation:10].

The period is mandatory because Section 25-B is a special code designed for summary and expeditious disposal of eviction petitions. The legislative intent is to ensure that landlords with genuine bona fide requirements are not delayed by frivolous defences. The period is not merely procedural but substantive in nature [citation:2].

The application is not maintainable. The Rent Controller cannot entertain it, and the landlord becomes entitled to an eviction order based on deemed admission under Section 25-B(4) [citation:2].

No. The Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh held that the Limitation Act does not apply to the special procedure under Section 25-B. The Rent Controller cannot entertain an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay [citation:4][citation:8].

Section 25-B(4) provides that in default of the tenant’s appearance or obtaining leave, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant, and the landlord shall be entitled to an eviction order on the specified ground [citation:2].

Yes. Once the tenant fails to file the leave to defend application within 15 days, the deemed admission operates automatically. The Rent Controller is bound to accept the landlord’s statements as correct and pass an eviction order [citation:2].

The tenant can challenge the eviction order in revision under Section 25-B(8), but the scope is limited. The tenant must satisfy the dual test of (1) being prevented by reasons beyond control from filing within time, and (2) having a substantial case for consideration [citation:11].

The Division Bench in Directorate of Education v. Mohd. Shamim laid down a dual test. The tenant must establish: (1) that he was prevented by reasons beyond his control from applying for leave to defend within the prescribed period; and (2) that there exists a substantial case for consideration of the proposed defence [citation:11][citation:16].

Yes. The Delhi High Court has expressly stated: “The aforesaid requirements are cumulative. Thus, unless the tenant succeeds in satisfying both limbs of the test, the question of interference by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act, would not arise” [citation:16].

Once the first limb fails, there is no occasion to examine the second limb. The Court stated: “The merits of the proposed defence cannot be permitted to substitute an explanation for the delay which has otherwise not been established” [citation:16].

The rationale is to balance the tenant’s right to a fair opportunity with the landlord’s right to expeditious disposal. While the Rent Controller cannot condone delay, the High Court may interfere in exceptional cases where the tenant was genuinely prevented from complying with the timeline and has a real defence to offer [citation:11].

The Division Bench held: “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… 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 non-filing of leave to defend within the prescribed time, the said order cannot be said to have been made according to law and would qualify as being contrary to law and liable to be set aside” [citation:11].

The Division Bench held that the High Court would be empowered to set aside the order of eviction only if the tenant passes the dual test of (1) being prevented by reasons beyond control from applying for leave to defend within the prescribed time (as distinct from every default); and (2) making out a substantial case for consideration of the application for leave to defend [citation:11].

The decision clarifies that while the Rent Controller has no power to condone delay, the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) is not completely excluded. However, the power is exercised only in exceptional circumstances where the dual test is satisfied [citation:11][citation:14].

The tenant filed a leave to defend application with a delay of 14 days. The tenant attributed the delay to illiteracy, financial hardship, and the time taken to collect old documents. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, holding that it lacked power to condone delay, relying upon earlier Delhi High Court authority [citation:16].

The High Court held that the tenant failed to satisfy the first limb of the dual test. The Court stated: “A bald assertion that the tenant was unaware of the procedure, was unable to arrange funds or required time to collect documents, without particulars demonstrating how such circumstances actually prevented compliance with the statutory timeline, would not by itself satisfy this requirement” [citation:16].

The Court observed: “The plea of illiteracy, by itself, cannot constitute an automatic ground for condonation of delay” [citation:16].

The Court clarified: “The requirement to file an application seeking leave to defend within the prescribed period cannot be made contingent upon the tenant first assembling every document which he may ultimately seek to rely upon in support of his defence” [citation:16].

The Court held that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and the statutory consequence followed. The eviction order could not be disturbed. The Court emphasised that the two requirements are cumulative and once the first limb fails, there is no occasion to examine the second limb [citation:16].

The Court emphasised that the tenant must provide particulars demonstrating how the alleged circumstances actually prevented compliance with the statutory timeline. A vague assertion made after the expiry of the statutory period is insufficient [citation:16].

A tenant should preserve contemporaneous evidence demonstrating: the precise nature of the impediment; dates on which legal assistance was sought; communications with counsel; medical records where illness is relied upon; evidence of inability to obtain necessary assistance; and other material establishing the causal connection between the circumstances and the delay [citation:16].

The Delhi High Court has held that where the 15-day period expires on a day when the court is closed (such as during summer vacations), the spirit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies, and the application may be filed on the first re-opening day [citation:1].

A substantial case means that the proposed defence raises triable issues that warrant consideration. The tenant cannot be granted leave merely on the strength of bald, vague and unsubstantiated assertions [citation:5].

The Supreme Court held: “For availing the leave to defend as envisaged under Section 25-B(5), a mere assertion per se would not suffice… The degree of probability is one of preponderance forming the subjective satisfaction of the Rent Controller. Thus, the quality of adjudication is between a mere moonshine and adequate material and evidence meant for the rejection of a normal application for eviction” [citation:5].

No. The two limbs are cumulative. Even a potentially substantial defence cannot rescue a tenant who fails to establish that the delay was attributable to circumstances beyond his control [citation:16].

The Court stated: “The merits of the proposed defence cannot be permitted to substitute an explanation for the delay which has otherwise not been established” [citation:16].

In Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh (2010) 2 SCC 15, the Supreme Court held: (1) Section 25-B is a special code; (2) The Rent Controller must follow it strictly; (3) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Limitation Act are not applicable; (4) The Rent Controller has no power to condone delay [citation:4].

The decision establishes that the 15-day period is not a mere procedural requirement but a substantive limitation that goes to the root of the tenant’s right to contest. The strictness of the provision reflects the legislative intent of expeditious disposal [citation:2].

The Supreme Court held that Rule 23, which generally allows the Controller to be guided by the CPC, does not confer any power to apply the Limitation Act to Section 25-B proceedings. The special procedure overrides the general rule [citation:4].

The 15-day period starts from the date of service of summons. Do not wait for the date mentioned in the summons or for any hearing date. Calculate the 15-day period from the date of service and act immediately.

The application must be supported by an affidavit stating the grounds on which you seek to contest the eviction. The affidavit must disclose facts that would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an eviction order.

The Court clarified that the requirement to file within the prescribed period cannot be made contingent upon the tenant first assembling every document. File with whatever documents you have; you can seek to file additional documents later.

If you believe you were prevented by reasons beyond your control from filing within time, document those reasons carefully. Preserve contemporaneous evidence demonstrating the precise nature of the impediment and the causal connection to the delay.

Given the strictness of the timeline, consult a qualified advocate immediately upon receiving summons. Do not attempt to navigate the procedure alone.

The 15-day period starts from the date of valid service. Ensure that summons in the prescribed form (Third Schedule) is served properly, either in the ordinary way or by registered post. Maintain records of service.

Once service is effected, monitor the 15-day period. If the tenant fails to file the leave to defend application within time, you can move the Rent Controller for an eviction order based on deemed admission.

If the tenant files a belated application, oppose it on the ground that the Rent Controller has no power to condone delay. Cite the settled law in Rakesh Gupta, Om Prakash, and Prithipal Singh.

Even if the Rent Controller passes an eviction order, the tenant may approach the High Court under Section 25-B(8). Be prepared to address the dual test — the tenant must show reasons beyond control and a substantial case.

The limitation period is 15 days from the date of service of summons in the prescribed form (Third Schedule) [citation:2].

The 15-day period is mandatory. The Delhi High Court has consistently held that it cannot be extended, even by a single day [citation:15].

No. The Rent Controller has no power to condone delay in filing the leave to defend application. Section 25-B is a complete code, and the Limitation Act is not applicable [citation:8][citation:15].

If you file beyond 15 days, your application is not maintainable. The Rent Controller cannot entertain it, and the landlord becomes entitled to an eviction order based on deemed admission under Section 25-B(4) [citation:2].

The dual test requires the tenant to establish: (1) that he was prevented by reasons beyond his control from applying within the prescribed period; and (2) that there exists a substantial case for consideration of the proposed defence. Both limbs are cumulative [citation:11][citation:16].

The Division Bench held that the High Court can set aside an eviction order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) only if the tenant passes the dual test of being prevented by reasons beyond control and making out a substantial case [citation:11].

No. The Court observed that “The plea of illiteracy, by itself, cannot constitute an automatic ground for condonation of delay” [citation:16].

No. The Court clarified that the requirement to file within the prescribed period cannot be made contingent upon the tenant first assembling every document [citation:16].

Once the first limb fails, there is no occasion to examine the second limb. The merits of the proposed defence cannot substitute an explanation for the delay [citation:16].

The Delhi High Court has held that where the 15-day period expires on a day when the court is closed, the spirit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies, and the application may be filed on the first re-opening day [citation:1].

The Supreme Court held that Section 25-B is a special code, the Rent Controller must follow it strictly, the Limitation Act is not applicable, and the Rent Controller has no power to condone delay [citation:4].

A substantial case means that the proposed defence raises triable issues that warrant consideration. The tenant cannot be granted leave merely on the strength of bald, vague and unsubstantiated assertions [citation:5].

No. The statutory scheme does not permit a fresh application after the expiry of 15 days. The Rent Controller cannot entertain an application filed beyond the prescribed period.

Preserve contemporaneous evidence demonstrating: the precise nature of the impediment; dates on which legal assistance was sought; communications with counsel; medical records; evidence of inability to obtain necessary assistance; and other material establishing the causal connection [citation:16].

Consult a qualified advocate immediately. Do not wait for the hearing date. Calculate the 15-day period from the date of service and file the leave to defend application within that period.

A genuine and honest need of the landlord to occupy the premises for himself or his family members, as opposed to a mere desire or whimsical wish.

Permission granted by the Rent Controller to a tenant to contest an eviction petition. It must be sought within 15 days of service of summons under Section 25-B.

The provision that allows a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for residence or business.

The special procedure for summary disposal of eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e). It is a complete code in itself.

The provision that mandates filing of affidavit seeking leave to defend within 15 days, failing which the landlord’s statements are deemed admitted.

The legal consequence under Section 25-B(4) where the landlord’s statements in the eviction petition are treated as admitted by the tenant if the latter fails to obtain leave to defend.

The test for the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8): (1) tenant prevented by reasons beyond control; (2) substantial case for consideration.

The schedule to the DRC Act that prescribes the form of summons, specifying the 15-day period for appearance and seeking leave to defend.

The power of the High Court under Section 25-B(8) to call for records and satisfy itself that the Rent Controller’s order is according to law.

A situation where the tenant is prevented from complying with the statutory timeline due to factors outside his control, such as court closure on the last day. Mere illiteracy, financial hardship, or time to collect documents do not qualify.

A defence that raises triable issues warranting consideration, as opposed to bald, vague or unsubstantiated assertions.