The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strict compliance with the prescribed mode of service of summons to the tenant and the consequences of failure to contest an eviction petition within the statutory period.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the eviction order dated 8th July, 2012 passed by the Rent Controller (South), Saket Courts, Delhi in favour of the respondent.

2. The respondent had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner in respect of one shop situated on the ground floor of the premises bearing no. C-6, Krishna Park, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the tenanted shop”) on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. It was contended therein that the tenanted shop was bonafidely required for the elder son of the respondent for running his business.

3. Summons in the said petition were served upon the petitioner in accordance with Schedule III of the Act on 16th March, 2012 as per the report of the process server. However, the petitioner allegedly did not file an application for leave to defend and an affidavit as required under Section 25 B of the Act within the statutory period of 15 days.

4. Consequently, an eviction order was passed in favour of the respondent against the petitioner on 8th June, 2012 in respect of the tenanted shop.

5. Aggrieved thereof the petitioner filed the present petition contending that the eviction order has been obtained by an exercise of fraud and forgery committed by the Respondent, in collusion with the process server and the postman. It is mentioned that a perusal of the said server report would reveal that it is not clear as to whom the said summons were tendered and at which property nor is the identity of the person refusing the same is verified. It is averred that the report so procured is totally false. It is categorically denied that any summons were ever received or that there was any occasion to refuse any such summons, especially when, admittedly, the parties have already been contesting litigations pending since prior and even thereafter to the filing of the said eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The petitioner has provided a list of pending litigations between the parties.

6. It is stated that the respondent and his family members live in the remaining area of the property bearing no. C-6, Krishna Park, New Delhi, of which the tenanted shop forms a part, and so it is apparent that the respondent and his family members had colluded and got the said false reports on the summons. It is also stated that the respondent is aware of the residential address of the Petitioner, but intentionally the said address was not given in the eviction petition.

7. It is mentioned in the present petition that on 19th December, 2012, the respondent acting upon the impugned eviction order which was obtained allegedly by playing a fraud upon the Court, dispossessed the petitioner from the tenanted shop and his goods and articles were forcibly thrown on the road as on ground that the petitioner was aware about the eviction order obtained by the respondent on the basis of non-filing of application for leave to defend.

8. It is stated that aggrieved thereof on ill-advise of some lawyers, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal instead of preferring the present petition. The said appeal was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable and hence, the present petition was filed by the petitioner for seeking permission to file leave to defend application.

9. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to mention the details of litigations pending between the parties prior to filing of the eviction petition by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act :

i) Suit No.958/2011 titled “Jor Singh Vs. Jai Prakash Sharma”, the facts stated in the plaint on behalf of the petitioner were:-

Sh. Jai Prakash Sharma, that is, father of the respondent herein and his family members extended threats of forcible dispossession and thus the said suit was filed to seek protection. The said Sh