Yogeshwar Dayal, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition under Sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the order dated 17th January, 1983 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for leave to appear and contest the ejectment application filed by the respondents against him under the provisions of clause (e) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 read with Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground of their bona fide personal requirement.

( 2 ) IT appears that the respondents-landlord filed the aforesaid ejectment application on or, about 25th January, 1982. The petition came up before the learned Additional Rent Controller on 27th January, 1982 when it was directed to be registered and it was also directed that the notice under Schedule III be. issued to the respondent (petitioner herein) for 14th April, 1982 vide process fee and registered cover within a week. The staff of the Controller reported that the tenant has been served through Neelam Anand. It transpires from the record that matter was taken up by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on 14th April, 1982 and the counsel for the landlord wanted to argue on the point that service through Neelam Anand is sufficient service and the case was adjourned for arguments on the point to 14th May, 1982.

( 3 ) IT appears that the tenant-petitioner herein filed an application for leave to delend the ejectment application dated 2nd May, 1982 on or about 3rd May, 1982 and before the matter could be listed for arguments as desired by the Controller earlier in view of the leave application which appears to have been presented by the petitioner accompanied by his counsel, it was directed that the application for leave to defend the ejectment application will be taken up on 16th August, 1982 for reply and arguments.

( 4 ) IN this application for leave to appear and contest, it was inter alia stated on behalf of the tenant that he has not been served in accordance with law and is entitled to service of summons about this case but he is making this application only as a precautionary measure so that ends of justice may not be defeated behind his back.

( 5 ) AS stated earlier, by the impugned order the learned Additional Rent Controller held that there was valid service of summons through registered A/d post and accordingly since the application was not filed within 15 days of such service, the application was dismissed as barred by time and a decree was passed by the Controller.

( 6 ) THE procedure for disposal of an application filed, inter alia, on the ground contained in clause (e) to the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act is stated in Sub-sections (1) (2) (3) and (4) of Section 25 B of the Act. For facility of reference, the aforesaid provisions are re-produced herreunder:

"25b (1) Every application by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in Clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Ssction 14, or under Section 14 A, shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this section. (2) The Controller shall issue summons, in relation to every application referred to in Sub-section (1) in the form specified in the third Schedule. (3) (a) The Controller shall, in addition to, and simultaneously with, the issue of summons for service on the tenant, also direct the summons to be served by registered post, acknowledgment due, addressed to the tenant of his agent empowered to accept the service at the place where the tenant or his agent actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and may. if the circumstances of the case so require, also direct the publication of the summons in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the tenant is last known to have resided or carried on business or p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document