Avadh Behari Rohatgi,j.

( 1 ) NO other act of the Indian legislature has shown such a high fecundity as the Rent Acts in producing complex problems for judges and lawyers to solve. A leading text book in England is dedicated "to the draftsmen of the Acts with awe and affection" and to the judges who administer them "with a sympathy as profound as it is respectful". (Sir Robert Meggary : The Rent Acts ).

( 2 ) THE facts of this case are not in dispute. The respondent landlady filed an eviction petition under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) seeking eviction of the tenant. The Frank Anthony Public School, from the first floor of house No. R-231, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. The School had taken these premises on rent from the landlady on a monthly rent of Rs. 747. 00 per month. On the ground that premises were bona fide required by the landlady for herself and members of her family she sued the tenant for eviction. (Section 14 (1 ) (e) of the Act ).

( 3 ) THE Additional Rent Controller issued summons in the ordinary manner as well as by registered post. The tenant applied for leave to appear and contest the eviction case. The Additional Controller held that the leave application was barred by time. On 17th March, 1983 he made an order of eviction. From the order of eviction the tanant has filed this revision applica- tion under Section 25-B (8) of the Act.

( 4 ) THE tenant was served by registered post on 11-5-1982. In the ordinary manner the summons were served on the Principal on 12-5-1982. Counting fifteen days from 12-5-1982 the tenant applied for leave to contest the case on 27-5-1982. The Additional Controller held that the tenant was served on 11-5-1982 when the registered letter was delivered and period of fifteen days has to be computed from 11-5-1982. On this view came to the conclusion that the leave application made on 27-5-1982 was beyond time as fifteen days time had expired on 26-5-1982.

( 5 ) THE single point for decision in this case is whether fifteen days time has to be computed from 11-5-1982 when service was effected by registered post or from 12-5-1982 when summons in the ordinary manner were served on the tenant. Counsel for the tenant says that time has to be com puted from the service of the second summons on 12-5-1982. Counsel for the landlady, on the other hand, says that time has to be computed from the service of the first summons on 11-5-1982.

( 6 ) COUNSEL for the landlady has brought to my attention a decision of Sultan Singh, J. in Smt. Kama! Bhandari v. Brig. Shamsher Singh Malhotra 1981 (2) D. R. J. 260. The learned Judge took the view that "if a tenant has been served by two modes and summons was duly served by both modes, the period of fifteen days will commence from the date on which he was first served". He said : "the first service is not wiped out by the second service", so fifteen days time will commence from the first service. He held that the tenant s application for leave to appear was barred by time. So he dismissed the revision petition of the tenant and upheld the eviction order made against him by the Controller.

( 7 ) COUNSEL for the tenant, on the other hand, cites a decision of M. L. Jain, J. in Surender Kumar v. Prem Kumar, 1980 (1) D. R. J. 170. Jain, J. thought that service should properly be reckoned from the date of the later service. This judgment was cited before Sultan Singh, J. but he distinguished it on the ground that the facts, of the case before Jain, J. were different.

( 8 ) COUNSEL for the landlady has raised three arguments before me. I will take them one by one. Modes of Service

( 9 ) FIRST he said that the view of Sultan Singh, J. should be followed in preference to the view of M. L. Jain, J. The reason he gave in support of his argument was that if the tenant is first served by registered post and then in the ordinary manner, the second service does not wipe out the first service. And once the tenant has been served it is good enoug

Click Here to Read the rest of this document