( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of two revision petitions, (1) No. 157 of 1980, and (2) No. 158 of 1980.

( 2 ) THE landlord filed a petition under s. 25b of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter the Act) against the tenant for his eviction on 31. 7. 1979. The Controller directed that the summons on the respondent tenant be served in the Form given in the Schedule III to the Act. The summons was, according to the tenant, served on him on 16. 10. 1979; and according to the landlord, on October 6, 1979. One more summons as required by law was sent under the registered cover. The cover bears the endorsement "not met" on October 4,5,6,8 and 10. No. A. D. card was received back but the tenant maintained that he got the registered cover on 12. 10. 1979.

( 3 ) THE tenant appeared on 24. 10. 1979. and moved an application for leave to defend the petition Reply was filed on 14. 11. 79. According to the summons the tenant is required to appear within fifteen days of the service of the summons and to obtain the leave of the Controller to contest the application upon the warning that in default, the applicant is entitled at any time after the expiry of the said period of 15 days to obtain an order for eviction. The applicant contended that the summons was in fact served on 6. 10. 79, but the tenant filed his application for leave to defend on October 24. 10. 1979, which he could not do and the applicant was entitled to an order of eviction. The tenant contended in the first instance that the summons was received by him on October 16. At any rate, the registered cover was received by him on October 12, and, therefore, his application for leave was within time.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional Controller held some inquiry. She examined the process-server. Ahlmad, Naib Nazir and the respondent. She came to hold on 15. 11. 1979, that the service through the process serves was effected on October 6 and not on October 16. In the absence of the A. D card, it was not Possible to hold that the registered cover was delivered to the tenant on 12. 101979. Even if it were so, the count down will commence on 6. 10. 1979. She therefore, rejected the application for leave to defend. Revision No. 157 of 1980 is against this order.

( 5 ) ON November 16. 11. 1979, the learned Additional Controller passed an order of eviction in the presence of both the parties. Revision No. 158 of 1980 is directed against that order.

( 6 ) I heard arguments on April 22, 1980, and took time for consideration. On 24. 4. 80, the petitioner moved an application to add an additional ground to his revision petition that even if the summons is held to have been served on October 6,1979, fifteen days expired on 21. 10,79, which was a Sunday. He should have filed the affidavit on 22. 10. 79, but did so on 24,10. 79. This delay in filing the application for leave to defend was bonafide and was barely of two days, and the learned Additional Controller should have condoned it. It was also prayed tiat this court may condone the delay and remit the case for further proceedings or may direct the Additional Controller to examine whether delay be condoned or not and then proceed further.

( 7 ) IN reply, it is said :-

(1) The application is not bonafide because it is intended to delay the decision of this court on the revisions. (2) The scope of revision is only to see if the impugned order is according to law. No application for condonation of delay was made before the Addl. Controller and could not now be made. (3) The petitioner made false statements regarding the service of summons and, therefore, he does not merit any consideration with regard to condonation of delay.

( 8 ) I have heard the parties also on this application. This Court has, in several of its decisions, held :

(1) The Controller has all the trapings, powers and procedure of a civil court, it is also a magistrate under S. 341 of the Act. It is a court under S. 195 and S. 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.