Proper service of summons as per Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act is mandatory for eviction proceedings.

Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the eviction order dated 10th July, 2012 passed by ARC (North), Delhi, in respect of the property bearing No.1439, Chatta Abdul Razaq, Lambi Gali, Behind Novelty Cinema, Delhi- 110006 (hereinafter referred to as “the tenanted premises”).

2. Brief facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are that the respondent filed the eviction petition stating that he bonafidely requires the tenanted premises mainly, for his son, who is about to finish his education, and also for expansion of his own business of footwear.

3. It is pertinent to mention that in the eviction petition, the summons were issued under the schedule III of the DRC Act by way of registered AD and the ordinary post but the summons were received by some Mr. Ajeet who was the employee of the petitioner and the said service was accepted by the learned RC as service on the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that due to non service of summons on him, the leave to defend application could not be filed by him within the stipulated period of 15 days and since the summons were not served upon him as per law. As per record, the summons were received by Mr. Ajeet on 18th May 2012, However, as recorded in the impugned order, one Mr. Ajeet Messey filed an application dated 1st June, 2012 stating that he had received the summons as the petitioner was out of station and that he is an employee of the petitioner. It was stated therein that the petitioner had left for USA on 19th May, 2012 and so could not be contacted. It was deposed by him that since the service was effected upon him under pressure, this was no service in the eyes of law and summons should have either been served upon the petitioner personally or his recognised agent.

4. The learned trial court on perusal of the service report found that endorsement therein was made stating that the petitioner is out of town and that he would be leaving for America on 19th May, 2012 and would return after 3 months, therefore, a date after 3 months was requested for. It was also stated in the report by the process server that one Mr. Ajeet stating himself to be the Manager of the company received the summons after reading them and talking on phone with the petitioner.

5. Since neither anyone had appeared on behalf of the petitioner nor there was any mention in the endorsement made by Mr. Ajeet that summons were received without obtaining the instructions from the petitioner, the trial court was of the, the application could not believed to be true. Even otherwise, since no leave to defend application was filed within the stipulated period of 15 days, the learned trial court opined that the contents of the petition were deemed to have been admitted by the petitioner in view of Section 25 B (4) of the Act.

6. With these observations, the impugned eviction order was passed and aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed the present petition on the grounds mainly that the same in bad in law as well as on the facts of the case. It is stated that the learned trial court exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.

7. Mr. Chawla appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the learned Rent Controller fell in grave error while passing the impugned order as the service of the petitioner was not conducted as per the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Section 25 B of the Act. The said acceptance of the service by an employee of the petitioner was neither the service upon him nor upon the agent empowered to accept the service on his behalf. Thus, the said service was irregular and procedurally incorrect and thus the impugned order warrants interference of this court.

8. The main argument of Mr. O.P. Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent is that as per report of the process server