The court established that an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) is not maintainable if it falls within the bar under Section 14(6) of the Rent Act, and the exception under Section 25-C(1) does not apply unless specific conditions are met.

P.K.BHASIN, J

This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958(in short „the Rent Act?) has been filed by the petitioners-landlords against the order dated 06.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller („the Controller?in short) dismissing their eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act against the respondent-tenant in respect of one shop no. 386, built on Plot no. 24, Khasra No. 235/35-36-39, Block BD, Ward No. 16, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi(hereinafter to be referred as „the tenanted shop?).

2. The brief facts which led to filing of this petition are that the petitioners-landlords had filed an eviction petition against the respondent-tenant seeking his eviction from the tenanted shop on many grounds, one of which was the bona fide requirement of the tenanted shop. The Controller when took up the eviction petition for the first time on 01.06.2009 had passed the following order:

“Heard. Issue summons of the eviction petition to the respondent in the form prescribed under Schedule-III of DRC Act on filing of PF/RC, for 20.08.09.”

Summons under Schedule III of the Rent Act are ordered to be issued to a tenant when his eviction is sought by his landlord from the tenanted premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, which provision was also invoked by the petitioners-landlords in the present case. Whenever summons prescribed under Schedule III are issued as provided under Section 25-B(2) of the Rent Act in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) the tenant is supposed to obtain permission of the Rent Controller to contest the eviction petition within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the summons and if that is not done the averments made in the eviction petition are to be taken as admitted by the tenant and the Controller is to pass eviction order straightaway. This is so provided under Section 25-B(4) of the Rent Act.

3. The respondent-tenant in the present case was duly served with the summons which was returnable for 20/08/2009 but he did not file any application seeking leave of the Controller to contest the eviction petition within 15 days and instead presented his written statement on 07/08/2009. On 20.08.2009 the learned Controller was on leave and so the ahalmad of the Court fixed the case for 24.10.2009 after recording in the order-sheet that written statement had already been filed. On 24.10.2009 the following order was passed by the Controller:

“Written submissions filed on behalf of the Petitioner on 23.10.2009. it is submitted by the proxy Counsel for the Respondents that main Counsel is not available. At request put up on 19.12.2009 for filing of rejoinder/arguments on the written submissions.”

It appears that instead of writing „written statement?„written submissions?came to be typed in the proceedings of 24th October. Thereafter, the petitioners raised a grievance before the Controller that since the respondent-tenant had not sought leave to contest the eviction petition his written statement should not have been taken on record and eviction order should have been passed straightaway. From the side of the respondent-tenant it was claimed that since the petitioners had filed the eviction petition on many grounds available to them under the Rent Act ordinary summons should have been issued and wrongly the same had been issued under Schedule III as if the petition was only under Section 14(1)(e) of the Rent Act. That is evident from the following the proceedings of 23.03.2010 recorded by the learned Controller;-

“Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the in the present petition, application for leave to defend has not been filed by the respondents and therefore, respondents are liable to be evicted.

Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the present petition is not covered under the summary proceedings and that is why application for leave to defend was not filed and WS was filed because the present petition has b