Sultan Singh,j. (Oral)

( 1 ) THIS revision under Section 25b (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the-Act ) challenges the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 5. 3. 1981 dismissing the petitioner s application for leave to defend and consequently passing an order of eviction against her under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act.

( 2 ) THE respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction of the petitioner-tenant under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act on 11. 12. 1979. Summons in the ordinary manner as well as by registered A. D. post were ordered to be issued. Summons sent to the petitioner through process server upon her on 4. 1. 1980. Another summons was sent by registered A. D. post under postal receipt No. 5304 dated 4. 1. 1980. The petitioner filed an application for leave to detend on 12. 5. 1980 and another application under Section 4 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to defend on 3. 12. 1980. The petitioner had also filed another application on 30. 4. 1980 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure presuming that there was already an ex-parte order of eviction against her. The Controller after hearing the parties held that the petitioner-tenant was served on 4. 1. 1980 personally, that the application for leave to defend having been filed after the expiry of more than 15 days was barred by time and therefore, dismissed the same.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not served on 4. 1. 1980. He submits that on 4. 1. 1980 a fraud was played by the respondent on her who is an illitrate household lady aged 70 years and generally remains sick due to weakness, age and short of eye-sight, that the respondent came to the petitioner along with one process server and got her signatures on the back of summons on the pretext that the process server was an officer from the Corporation and wanted to install a water meter in the connection from which she was getting water as the same was unmetered and for that purpose she would have to sign the paper. She further alleges that the respondent after getting her signatures took away the summons as well as the copy of the eviction petition, and that she came to know for the first time about the eviction proceedings on 28. 4. 1980. Her story is that one S. Sadhu Singh who was in need of residential accommodation met the respondent for taking suit premises for his newly married son and that the respondent told him that an eviction order was going to be passed and after that he would take possession immediately and let out the same to S. Sadhu Singh. The petitioner further says that the Court record was examined immediately thereafter and the leave to defend application was filed on 12. 5. 1980.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that summons of the eviction application was sent in the ordinary manner as well as by registered A. D. post, that personal service was effected on her on 4. 1. 1980 while service by registered post was effected on 7. 1. 1980. He submits that the petitioner s allegations were false, that there was no allegation of non service by registered post on 7. 1. 1980 in any application either for leave to defend filed on 12. 5. 1980 or for condonation of delay filed on 3. 12. 1980. He further says that there was no averment even in the application purporting to be under Order 9 Rule 1 3 of the Code filed on 30. 4. 1980. His contention is that the tenant was duly served under Order 5 Rule 19a of the Code and therefore, there was no ground for the petitioner not to apply for leave to defend within a period of 15 days as prescribed under the statute. Section 25b (3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 reads as under :

" (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 addr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document