Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: RC ARC273/25
MOHINDER KUMAR SEKHRI Vs. NARESH KUMAR
03.12.2025
Present: Mr. Narender Singh and Ms. Khushboo, Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner along-with petitioner.
Ms. Khushboo Yadav, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the respondent
along-with respondent.
As per the report of the Process Server, respondent was
served on 19.09.2025. However, leave to defend application has also not
been filed till date and limitation period to file the same has already
expired.
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that therefore the
petitioner is entitled for eviction order.
Arguments heard.
Put up for order at 4.00 PM.
(Devanshu Sajlan)
CCJ-cum-ARC (Central)
THC/Delhi/03.12.2025
At 4.00 PM
Present : None.
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the present eviction petition.
2. As per report of Process Server, summons was served upon the
respondent on 19.09.2025.
3. Application for leave to defend has not been filed till date. The
prescribed period of 15 days for filing leave to defend application has
expired.
RC ARC 273/2025 Mohinder Kumar Sekhri v. Naresh Kumar Page No. 1/4
-- 1 of 4 --
4. Arguments have been heard.
5. It is settled law that a petition u/s 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act is required
to be disposed of as per the special procedure u/s 25(B) DRC Act.
Section 25(B)(4) of DRC Act provides that the tenant to whom summons
are duly served shall not contest for prayer for eviction from the
premises unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he
seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the
Controller. The provision further provides that in case of default of his
appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the
statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be
deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to
an order of eviction on ground aforesaid.
6. The present case falls in a situation where an affidavit stating the
grounds on which the respondent seeks to contest the application has not
been filed. Accordingly, contents of the petition are deemed to be
admitted. The respondent is deemed to have admitted that petitioners are
the landlord of the tenant in the tenanted premises i.e., one room situated
on ground floor in the property bearing No. 1656, Himmat Garh, Gali
Lehswa, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-110006 and that there exists relationship
of landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondent is also
deemed to have admitted that the tenanted premises is bonafidely
required by the petitioner (the petitioner being handicapped and unable
to continue to live on the first floor since he is unable to walk without an
attendant and is unable to climb stairs). It is also deemed to have been
admitted that the petitioner does not have any other alternate suitable
accommodation for himself.
7. Therefore, eviction petition u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act is allowed
RC ARC 273/2025 Mohinder Kumar Sekhri v. Naresh Kumar Page No. 2/4
-- 2 of 4 --
and the respondent namely Mr. Naresh Kumar is directed to handover
the peaceful possession of the tenanted premises i.e., one room situated
on ground floor in the property bearing No. 1656, Himmat Garh,
Gali Lehswa, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-110006, as shown in red color in
site plan, to the landlords.
8. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of the provisions of
Section 14 (7) DRC Act, 1958, this order for recovery for possession
shall not be executed before expiration of a period of 6 months from this
date.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Devanshu Sajlan)
CCJ-cum-ARC (Central)
THC/Delhi/03.12.2025
At 4.02 PM
Present : None for the petitioner.
Mr. Ratnesh Kant, Ld. Counsel for therespondent.
An application has been filed for entering appearance and
and application seeking condonation of delay in filing appearance.
However, no leave to defend application has been filed. In any case, as
noted above, the leave to defend application has to be filed within 15
days from service of summons and there is no power to condone delay.
Accordingly, the abovesaid applications stand disposed of as not
maintainable.
(Devanshu Sajlan)
CCJ-cum-ARC (Central)
THC/Delhi/03.12.2025
RC ARC 273/2025 Mohinder Kumar Sekhri v. Naresh Kumar Page No. 3/4
-- 3 of 4 --
RC ARC 273/2025 Mohinder Kumar Sekhri v. Naresh Kumar Page No. 4/4
-- 4 of 4 --