VIJAY KUMAR KABRA (DECEASED) THROUGH LR vs SHEELA SINGH

Judgment text excerpt

$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 04th September, 2025 + CM(M) 1724/2025 & CM APPL. 55959/2025 VIJAY KUMAR KABRA (DECEASED) THROUGH LR .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Kavya Jhawar, Advocate. versus SHEELA SINGH .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending an eviction petition filed on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 2. Such tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend and, thereafter, the landlord filed response thereto by filing his reply on 28.01.2025. 3. Undoubtedly, such filing of reply by the landlord was a belated one. 4. Fact remains that, thereafter, the learned Controller granted opportunity to the tenant to file rejoinder within four weeks. 5. It was not filed within four weeks and when the matter was, eventually, taken up by the learned Controller on 01.04.2025, there was request from the side of the tenant that the counsel was unwell. 6. The Controller acceded to the request made by the tenant and granted them another period of two weeks to file rejoinder. 7. It seems that such concession given by the learned Controller was not taken by the tenant seriously enough and when the matter was taken up by the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1724/2025 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:04.09.2025 20:21:08 learned Controller on 09.07.2025, there was another request coming from their side contending that the tenant was unable to contact his counsel. 8. Keeping in mind the sufficient opportunities already granted to tenant for filing rejoinder, the learned Controller closed their right to file rejoinder while also observing that the filing of rejoinder was not a “matter of right” and it