Saroj Gupta v. Prem Lata & Ors

O R D E R %

24.08.2026 CM APPL. 57177/2026 (Exemption)

¶1Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶2The application stands disposed of. CM(M) 1879/2026

¶3The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") for expeditious disposal of case bearing no. RC ARC/28/2025, titled "Saroj Gupta Vs. Prem Lata and Anr.", pending before the learned ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi.

¶4Succinctly put, the brief facts are that on 15.09.2025, the petitioner filed a suit for eviction against the respondents, wherein summons were issued and the respondents filed application for leave to defend. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶5The main contention of the petitioner is that the suit for eviction has been pending since September 2025, and the matter has been repeatedly fixed for arguments on the application of leave to defend.

¶6Counsel for the petitioner argues that repeated adjournments have been granted to the respondents which has resulted in unnecessary delay in deciding the leave to defend application and has consequently, frustrated the very object of the summary procedure prescribed under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

¶7He further submits that in the interregnum, the respondents have also filed a fresh application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of a proposed respondent no. 3, which will contribute to delaying the proceedings before the learned Tribunal.

¶8Heard and perused the record.

¶9From the perusal of the order sheets passed in the underlying eviction petition, it emerges that the respondents have time and again been afforded repeated opportunities to argue on the leave to defend application. The order dated 03.06.2026, also reflects that last and final opportunity was granted to the respondents to address arguments on the application for leave to defend, subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the petitioner.

¶10There is no doubt that the adjudication of the leave to defend application has been delayed and such delay in a summary proceeding ought not to be permitted.

¶11In view of the aforesaid and having regard to the limited relief sought in the present petition, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the learned Tribunal to consider and decide the application seeking leave to defend, in accordance with law. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶12The learned Tribunal is further requested to endeavor to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously, as far as practicable, keeping in view the exigencies of its board.

¶13The present petition, along with pending application(s), if any, is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶14Needless to clarify that this Court has not, in any way, expressed any view on the merits of the case.

AJAY DIGPAUL, J AUGUST 24, 2026 MK/dd The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010397212026 + CM(M) 1879/2026 SAROJ GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vansh Gandotra, Mr. Kartik Gandotra, Mr. Naman Sabharwal and Mr. Madhuresh Chaudhary, Advs. versus PREM LATA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL