The validity of service of summons under the Delhi Rent Control Act, particularly in cases involving refusal to receive summons and affixation, depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the Act) against the impugned order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 3.4.2014 whereby the Additional Rent Controller has decreed the bona-fide necessity petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act on account of leave to defend application not being filed within the prescribed statutory period of 15 days and because the prescribed statutory period of 15 days cannot be extended by condoning the delay of even one day in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs. (2010)2 SCC 15. The main case of the petitioner tenant is that in the present case the registered post article went back unclaimed and which is not a proper service in view of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dharampal vs. Meena Sharma, RCR 61 of 2010 decided on 28.2.2012 and that the service done by affixation is also not a mode of service as held in the same judgment of Dharampal (supra). Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of another learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jor Singh vs. Sanjeev Sharma, 2014 (1) RLR 239: 205 (2013) DLT 117 to argue that in a bona-fide necessity petition there is no service unless the summons are specifically addressed to the agent who receives the notice and the agent is not competent to receive a notice addressed to the tenant i.e. no other person other than the tenant himself can receive the summons/notice issued in a bona-fide necessity petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. This argument is urged because of the process server’s report that the brother of the petitioner/tenant refused to receive the summons.

2. There are various issues which require consideration. First is that can there be a general ratio that merely because tenant does not receive the summons addressed to him on his own and instead gets the summon received (or refused of) from someone else, then that is not a due service in view of the language of Section 25(B) of the Act and its sub-sections and the ratio of Jor Singh’s case (supra). Second issue is that if the tenant is found not to receive the summons by a subterfuge, by pretending that he is someone else would not be affixation which is done and which is done effectively pursuant to a refusal (refusal of tenant to receive by pretending he is some other person) be not treated as service of summons in a bona-fide necessity eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act and the prescribed format of the summons prescribed in the Schedule to the Act. Related aspect is that does Dharampal’s case (supra) lay down a general ratio that affixation in all types of circumstances and in no case can be treated as a service of summons in a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. Thirdly, it will have to be examined if the registered AD post article if it is not claimed by the tenant/petitioner deliberately, whether the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Madan & Co. vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand, AIR 1989 SC 630 will not apply to hold that there is proper service. Can it not be held in peculiar facts of cases that where there is a deliberate endeavour by a tenant to delay and drag the bona-fide necessity eviction petition with respect to which legislature has provided a speedy mechanism for decision service need not be only personally upon the tenant with respect to summons issued in the name of the tenant.

3. At this stage, let me straightaway turn to the ratio and observations of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dharampal (supra) is paras 3 to 10 and which read as under:-

“3. Record shows that on 02.06.2008 summons were directed to be issued under Schedule III of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) for 25.09.2008. On 25.09.2008 notice was again ordered upon the respondent under Schedule I