Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. Order impugned before this Court is the judgment dated 12.07.2011 whereby the eviction petition filed by Mohd. Haroon Japanwal (hereinafter referred to as the 'landlord') against Ram Kishan & Sons through its partner Sh. P.K. Khanna (hereinafter referred to as the 'tenant') had been decreed; the application seeking leave to defend had been dismissed. The Court had returned a finding that there is a delay of one day in filing the application for leave to defend and the Rent Controller has no power to condone the delay; the application seeking leave to defend could not be taken on record.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by this Order. His submission is that in fact service of summons had not been served upon the tenant in the prescribed form. Attention has been drawn to the provisions of Section 25-B (2)(3) & (4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA); submission being that the service has to be effected upon the tenant in strict compliance of the aforenoted procedure; this is as per the form prescribed in the IIIrd Schedule of the DRCA; it is submitted that admittedly in this case there is no service by registered A.D. and the summons which have allegedly been served upon the tenant in the ordinary manner also bears the signatures of one Mr. Rajender Prasad who although an employee of the company was not duly authorized to receive the summons on behalf of the tenant; attention has been drawn to the report of the process server dated 22.07.2008 as also the subsequent report dated 28.07.2008 which report had noted a valid service of summons upon the tenant.

3. The application for leave to defend had been filed on 13.08.2008. On 12.07.2011, an application had been filed by the tenant through his Advocate (same Advocate who had filed the application seeking leave to defend) wherein he had stated that even presuming that there is a delay of one day, without prejudice to his rights, he had sought condonation of delay of the aforenoted one day. It is in this background that the impugned judgment had been passed.

4. The ARC has returned a fact finding that the summons had been served upon the tenant on 28.07.2008; leave to defend has to be filed within the stipulated period of 15 days which admittedly expired on 12.08.2008; leave to defend having been filed on 13.08.2008 suffers from a delay of one day; the fact that there was a delay was also noted in the averments made in the application filed by the tenant seeking condonation of delay (dated 12.07.2011); submission having been noted that the tenant in this case had himself admitted that there was a delay of one day in filing the leave to defend. The ARC relying upon the judgment of Prithpal Singh v. Satpal Singh (Dead) through its LRs. I (2010) SLT 116 had noted that the ARC has no power to condone the delay even of one day and since the application seeking leave to defend has not been filed within the stipulated period of 15 days, it could not be taken on record; the necessary corollary being that the eviction decree followed in the hands of the landlord.

5. Vehement submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that Rajender Prasad was not the duly authorized agent (as is contemplated under Section 25-B (iii) of the DRCA) to receive the summons on behalf of the tenant. Admittedly the tenant is a partnership firm who is represented through his partner Mr. P.K. Khanna; service has not been effected on Mr. P.K. Khanna; record also does not show as to how the summons which were first taken by process server on 22.07.2008 wherein the process server had met Rajender Prasad, (he had not served the summons on Rajender Prasad on that date) but on subsequent date i.e. on 28.07.2008, the same Rajender Prasad had accepted the summons on behalf of the tenant firm. This was not a valid service. There is also no explanation as to why the ARC has not recorded as a fact that the summons had been validly served upon the tenant; this was his incumbent duty to