M.L. Mehta, J.:— (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Orders dated 02.04.2012 and 07.09.2012 passed by the Court of Shri. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Administrative Civil Judge-cum-ARC, Central Delhi in Eviction Petition bearing No. 75/2012, wherein the leave to defend application field by the respondents/tenants (Petitioners herein) and the subsequent review application have been dismissed on the grounds that the leave to defend application was barred by time. An order of eviction was also passed vide the impugned order dated 02.04.2012 in favour of the petitioner/landlord (Respondent herein).

2. The facts of the case are that, the Respondent is the owner of the commercial property/shop bearing No. 4451, Daiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi – 06 and the Petitioners are the tenants in respect of the aforesaid property. The Respondents filed an eviction petition against the Petitioners herein under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B, of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for eviction of the tenant from the aforementioned property on 02.12.2011. The service of summons in the aforementioned eviction petition was served upon the Petitioners by ordinary process on 20.12.2011, and by the registered post on 21.12.2011.

3. The counsel for the Petitioners filed an application seeking leave to defend on 05.01.2012. In the said application, the date of service of summons was mentioned as 20.12.2011, which is the date on which the Petitioners where served by ordinary post. The Ld. ARC dismissed the application of the Petitioners seeking leave to defend on the ground that the same was barred by time. An eviction order was passed against the Petitioners vide the impugned order dated 02.04.2012. Subsequently, the Petitioners filed an application seeking review of the order dated 02.04.2012 on the ground that the limitation period for filing leave to defend was to be calculated from the date of the second service, i.e. through registered post on 21.12.2011; and hence was within the prescribed time limit. The Ld. ARC dismissed the review application of the Petitioners vide the impugned order dated 07.09.2012.

4. The above mentioned facts of this case are not in dispute. The single point in question for consideration by this court in this case is, whether fifteen days limitation period to file the leave to defend application has to be calculated from 20.12.2011, which is when service was effected by ordinary post, or from 21.12.2011, which is when the service was effected through registered post. The learned senior counsel for the Petitioners/tenants has contended that the limitation period for filing leave to defend was to be calculated from the date of the second service, i.e. through registered post on 21.12.2011. Whereas the counsel for the Respondent/landlord has contended that the limitation period has to be calculated from the date of the first service, i.e. through ordinary post on 20.12.2011.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners has drawn my attention to the relevant provision of the Act. Section 25B (3)(a) of the Act stipulates the Controller shall, in addition to and simultaneously with the issue of summons for service on the tenant, also direct the summons to be served by registered post, acknowledgment due. The learned senior counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that, when summons are served through ordinary post as well as registered post AD, the aforementioned provision posits that the second summon served has the same potency as the one that was served first. Hence the limitation period of fifteen days must be calculated from the day of the second summon.

6. In furtherance of this contention, the learned senior counsel for Petitioners has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Frank Anthony Public School vs. Amar Kaur cited as 1984(6) DRJ 47, in which it was held th