The procedure for service of summons under Section 25B(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is mandatory and must be strictly followed.

( 1 ) SHRI Brij Nath Sharma, respondent, filed a petition for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground contained in clause (e) of Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The petitioner, though permanently residing in the premises in dispute at Shahdara Delhi had been posted for work at Agra and, therefore, the respondent gave two addresses of the petitioner in the eviction petition itself, i. e. , the address at Delhi as well as the address at Agra.

( 2 ) ON 20th May, 1977 the learned Additional Rent Controller ordered issue of summons under Schedule III of the Act, turnableonl2thjuly, 1977. The summons were issued on 23rd May 1977.

( 3 ) FROM the record it appears that whereas summons were taken through the process server at Delhi, the same were sent by registered post at Agra. The summons were not sent through the process-server at Agra and through registered post at Delhi.

( 4 ) ON 31st May, 1977 when the process server called at the residence of the petitioner, the petitioner was not present and the summons were delivered to his son. Raj Kumar. As regards the registered cover sent to Agra, it came back undelivered with an endorsement dated 1st June, 1977 to the effect that the addressee was not at home and it could not be known when he would return. The Check Overseer of the Belanganj Post Office at Agra has verified the above report as correct and has added, by way of English translation of the said report "left without address".

( 5 ) THE eviction application was taken up on 12th July, 1977. On that day the petitioner filed an application for leave to contest supported by an affidavit. In the application the petitioner claimed to have come to know about the eviction petition only on 10th July, 1977 when he was visiting Delhi and was informed, for the first time, about the summons in the case having been received by the son on 31st May, 1977. The petitioner also filed a separate application for condonation of delay in which also he set up. the case that he was informed about the summons only on 10th July, 1977. In this application it was pleaded that the respondent "dishonestly got service of summons served on a son of the respondent (petitioner) residing in the premises in dispute, although he knew that the respondent (petitioner) is not available at Shahdara, Delhi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ". It was further served in para 3 that, "the respondent s son is a simpleton. He did not know the consequences of being served with the summons in the name of the respondent, nor did he care to send the summons to the respondent at Agra or even to write to the been respondent at Agra that some summons have been received by him for and on behalf of the respondent. "

( 6 ) IN para 4, the petitioner contended that :

"that the respondent happened to come to Shihdara on 10th July, 1977. On his arrival he was confronted with the summons of the petition for his eviction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "in reply to the aforesaid averments relating to service of summions, the respondent landlord denied any dishonest intention by averring that both addresses, at Shadhara as well as at Agra had been given for service. It was further averred that in fact the petitioner remained in Delhi from 19th May, 1977 to 3rd June,. 1977 and documents were produced showing his presence in Delhi on 3rd June, 1977.

( 7 ) IN this background of facts and avermeats, the learned Additional Rent Controller proceeded to decide the disputed question of service of summons on the petitioner.

( 8 ) AFTER noting the case of the parties, the learned Additional Rent Controller noted in para 3 of the impugned order that :

"it has to be seen that the petitioner has given both the addresses of the respondent in the title of the petition itself and summons were served at both the addresses. Registered cover containing the summons and addressed to respondent at Agra were received back with the report dated 31. 5. 1977 to the