1. Challenge has been laid in the present petition to an order dated 19.7.2006 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissing an application filed by the petitioner/tenant praying inter alia for issuance of fresh summons to him under the Third Schedule of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short ‘the Act’) ; or in the alternate, for grant of 15 days time to file a leave to defend application to be reckoned from 13.7.2006 ; or permit the written statement filed by him to be taken as the grounds for leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the respondents/landladies under Section 14D of the Act. By the same order, after holding that the petitioner/tenant had failed to seek leave to defend the eviction petition within the prescribed period of limitation upon receipt of summons under the Third Schedule, the statement made by the respondents/landladies in the eviction petition was deemed to be admitted and an eviction order was passed in respect of the tenanted premises bearing House No.31/7, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi.

2. Before examining the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant, it is worth mentioning that though the present petition has remained on the regular board since 7.12.2009, none has been appearing for the respondents/landladies. This is despite the fact that on the basis of an application for early hearing filed by the respondents/landladies on the ground that both of them are widows and additionally, the respondent No.1 is a senior citizen, which was allowed vide order dated 15.1.2009, hearing of the present case was expedited and on 17.02.2009, it was directed that the matter be listed for final hearing, subject to overnight part-heard.

3. The sequence of events relevant for deciding the present case are that upon receiving the eviction petition filed by the respondents/landladies under Section 14D of the Act, the same was registered by the learned Additional Rent Controller on 01.03.2006 and summons were issued to the petitioner/tenant by ordinary process returnable on 18.5.2006. As a result, summons for settlement of issues under Order V Rules 1 & 5 of CPC, dated 9.3.2006, were issued to the petitioner/tenant calling upon him to appear in court on 18.5.2006. The said summons were received by the petitioner/tenant on 17.3.2006. On 5.5.2006, the petitioner/ tenant filed his written statement accompanied by an application under Section 148 CPC praying inter alia for enlargement of time and for condonation of delay of 19 days in filing the written statement.

4. A perusal of the trial court record shows that an endorsement dated 5.5.2006 was made on the margin of the aforesaid application to the effect that the same may be put up with the file on the date fixed. On 18.5.2006, an application was filed by the respondent No.1/landlady under Sections 25B(2) & 25B(3) of the Act read with Section 151 CPC stating inter alia that a perusal of the application filed by the petitioner/tenant under Section 148 of the CPC revealed that the summons of the eviction petition filed under Section 14D of the Act had not been issued by the court staff in the prescribed format of the Third Schedule of the Act, which is mandatory. It was further prayed that the period of filing the leave to defend application may be computed from the date of expiry of 30 days as mentioned in the summons served upon the petitioner/tenant, or the said period be computed from the date when the petitioner/tenant put in appearance, i.e., 5.5.2006 or 18.5.2006; or in the alternate, fresh summons be issued in the prescribed format of the Third Schedule of the Act.

5. As the Presiding Officer was on leave on 18.5.2006, the Ahlmad of the court endorsed a note on the margin of the aforesaid application filed by respondent No.1/landlady that the same be put up with the file on 22.5.2006 at 2.00 PM. Pertinently, a copy of the said application was not served upon the petitioner/tenant or his counsel.