The printing error in the summons under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was not fatal to its legality, and the liberty to file a fresh petition was embedded in the order dismissing the earlier petition.

Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 05.05.2007 passed by the learned ARC, whereby an eviction order was passed against the petitioners, who are two brothers occupying different floors of property bearing No. 1275, Ward No. 4, Gali Wakilpuram, Dariba Kalan, Delhi.

2. The respondent filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) read with Section 25B of the said Act. The summons were sent to the petitioners under Schedule III. Petitioner No. 1 Narender Kumar Jain was personally served by ordinary process as well as by registered covers on 13.03.2007, whereas petitioner No. 2 Surender Kumar Jain was served on 10.01.2007. Both the petitioners failed to file their respective leave to defend applications within the prescribed statutory period of 15 days. On 03.05.2007 when the matter was fixed before the Additional Rent Controller, the petitioners appeared and moved an application under Section 151 CPC. It was contended in the applications that the summons served upon the two petitioners made a reference to Sub-section (5) of Section 25(3) of the DRC Act and that there is no such provision in the said Act. It was also submitted that one of the site plan annexed to the petition did not have the colour markings and, thereforee, it was not the true copy of the plan as filed in the Court. One of the plans was also stated to have not been supplied along with the copy of the petition. It was also submitted that the summons had not been served personally upon petitioner No. 2 Sh. Surender Kumar Jain and had been served on his wife Smt. Rajrani Jain. The same could not be considered as proper service. By the impugned order, the learned ARC had rejected the aforesaid submissions of the petitioner, and in my view rightly so.

3. A perusal of the summons as served upon the petitioners, no doubt shows that it makes a reference to Sub-section (5) of Section 25(3) and that there is no such provision of law. It appears that in place of Section 25B, the same has been wrongly printed as 25(3). However, that to my mind is not very material since the requirement of the law that the noticee is required to appear before the Additional Rent Controller within 15 days of the service and to obtain the leave of the Controller to contest the application for eviction and in default thereof, the applicant will be entitled at any time after the expiry of the period of 15 days to obtain and order for the noticees eviction from the premises in question has been clearly set out. Consequently, printing of the relevant provision cannot be considered to be fatal to the summons as issued by the Court. In support of the submission with regard to the service of the summons on the wife of petitioner No. 2 is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on Punjab Oil Expillars Co. v. Madan Lal Nanda & Sons 1967 DLT 56. In the said judgment this Court had held that service in any of the ways enumerated in Order V, Rules 12 to 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, should be insisted upon and service by affixation as provided in Order V, Rule 17, should not be allowed till after the date fixed for scrutiny. In my view this judgment has no bearing on the facts of the present case. Admittedly, the wife of the petitioner No. 2 i.e. an adult family member, was served with the summons and it is not even his case that he did not become aware of the said summons, which were served on his wife. This service was in compliance with Order V Rule 15 CPC.

4. He also relies on Clause 5 in part D, which deals with service of process, in Chapter 1 "Practice for the Trial of civil suits" of the Delhi High Court Rules. The said clause requires that the form of summons for the final disposal of a suit should be printed in vernacular on coloured page, as this will tend to impress the distinction between the said form and that for settlement of issue both upon the mind of the people and upon the officers o