The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, both modes of service of summons are mandated and have to be resorted to simultaneously by the Controller. However, if service through one mode is completed or successful, that is deemed sufficient, irrespective of whether the other mode is successful or not. In case the tenant is served by both the modes, the period of 15 days for filing the leave to defend has to be counted from the first date of service. Time, for the purpose of filing leave to defend, does not depend on the second service of summons.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. This judgment is upon a reference of two questions by a learned single judge of this court, in her order dated 12.05.2015, in the course of a rent control Revision petition. The reference was necessitated in view of conflict of opinions discerned in judgments of this court (all delivered by learned single judges). The questions referred are:

“1. Whether the tenant is required to be served by both the modes as prescribed under Section 25B DRC Act or even service by one mode is sufficient service as per the requirement of the provision?

2. In case the tenant is served by both the modes whether the period of15 days for filing the leave to defend has to be counted from the first service or the second service?”

2. The facts necessary to answer the reference made to this Division bench are that the petitioner applied for “leave to defend” to the Additional Rent Controller (hereafter “ARC”), which was dismissed as barred by limitation on 14.01.2013. His review petition was dismissed by an order dated 20.05.2013. The ARC found that the notice of the eviction petition was served by ordinary process on 28.11.2012 and by registered post on 8.12.2012 on the petitioner. He applied for leave to defend on 17.12.2012.

3. For a better appreciation of the controversy, it would be necessary to - at this stage- notice the relevant provision of the Act. Section 25B, in this regard, reads as follows:

"25B Special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. -

(1) Every application by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, or under section 14A [or under section 14B or under section 14C or under section 14D] shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this section.

(2) The Controller shall issue summons, in relation to every application referred to in sub-section (1), in the form specified in the Third Schedule.

(3) (a) 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, acknowledgement due, addressed to the tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service at the place where the tenant or his agent actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and may, if the circumstances of the case so require, also direct the publication of the summons in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the tenant is last known to have resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain.

(b) When an acknowledgement purporting to be signed by the tenant or his agent is received by the Controller or the registered article containing the summons is received back with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the tenant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the registered article, the Controller may declare that there has been a valid service of summons.

(4) The tenant on whom the summons is duly served (whether in the ordinary way or by registered post) in the form specified in the Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files and affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided; and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid."

4. The respondent, landlord relied on Kamal Bhandari v Brigadier Shamsher Singh Malhotra 1981 (20) DLT 380, where the court held that Section 25B (3) prescribes an additional mode of service, apart from issuance of summons (under Section 25B (2)). The cour