Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 323
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JAYANT NATH, J.
Kalawati Devi - Petitioner
Versus
Kasturi Devi - Respondent
RC.Rev. No. 110 of 2016 & CM No. 5695 of 2016
Decided On : 31-01-2017
For the Petitioner: Ms. Prabha Sharma
For the Respondent: Mr. Biswajeet, Mr. Sumit Mangla
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of proper service of summons and the requirement to adhere to the provisions of Section 25-B of the DRC Act.
Headnote:
DRC Act - Eviction Petition - Section 25-B(8) - Section 14(1)(e) - Third Schedule - Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh, 2010 1AD (SC) 370 - Shyam Sunder Wadhawan v. Vivek Arya, 214 (2014) DLT 616
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act seeking eviction of the respondent. The respondent moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte eviction order dated 16.10.2012.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the service of summons on the respondent was disputed, and the ARC concluded that the summons were not served in accordance with law. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the matter to be decided afresh after providing an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the summons were properly served on the respondent, and whether the ARC had the power to go into the issue of service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proper service of summons as per the provisions of Section 25-B of the DRC Act and referred to relevant case law to determine the validity of service. It held that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided without permitting parties to lead evidence.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was directed to be decided afresh after providing an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.
Jayant Nath, J.
1. By the present petition filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DRC Act’), the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 29.10.2015 by which an application filed by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte eviction order dated 16.10.2012 was allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act seeking eviction of the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises being Khasra No.7, Rajpur Khurd, Extension, New Delhi. It was claimed by the petitioner that the respondent was a tenant since 2005 at a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/-. It was stated that the petitioner required the tenanted premises for her residential as well as for her family who are dependent upon her. She is said to have 12 family members residing with her at house being No.172/1, Railway Colony, Kishan Ganj, Delhi.
3. On 08.05.2012, summons were issued as per Schedule-III of the DRC Act returnable for 25.07.2012 to the respondent. On 25.07.2012, the ARC recorded that the summons has been received back unserved with the report that “address is incomplete”. Hence, fresh summons was directed to be issued. The petitioner was directed to file complete address of the respondent. The petitioner instead of filing fresh process fee, registered AD cover, sought dasti service on the respondent. This application was allowed on 24.08.2012. On 16.10.2012, the ARC noted that the summons has been received back with service on 03.09.2012. It accepted the report of the process server and as the respondent had failed to move an application seeking leave to defend the case within the stipulated period, the ARC passed an eviction order against the respondent straightway. On 21.11.2013, the petitioner executed the eviction order and took back the possession from the respondent.
4. The respondent has then moved the application Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte order and application under Order 21 Rule 26 CPC for restoration of the property to the respondent. The ARC by the impugned order concluded that no proper service has been effected on the respondent. It noted that the predecessor court had in a casual manner allowed the dasti service. In fact, it had been noted earlier that the address given was incomplete. It also noted that the respondent is an illiterate and rustic woman having no formal understanding of the court proceedings. It also concluded that dasti summons was received back duly served with the signature of one Ms. Madhu on the same. It noted that dasti summons has always been considered by the higher courts as not approved form of service, much less in sensitive matters in the nature of eviction, wherein leave to defend is required to be filed within 15 days. It also concluded that there is nothing on record to show that said Ms. Madhu, the alleged granddaughter of the respondent was empowered to accept the service of summons. Noting the provision of Section 25-B of the DRC Act are to be strictly adhered to the ARC concluded that summons were not served in accordance with law on the respondent and recalled the ex-parte order dated 16.10.2012 and also directed that the respondent be put back in possession.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Relevant part of Section 25-B of the DRC Act 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 spec
