IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of ensuring the tenant's right to be heard before eviction by carefully examining the service of summons and scrutinizing each case on its merits.

JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J.

1. By way of this petition, brought under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner/tenant has assailed order dated 21.01.2015 of the learned Additional Rent Controller, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was allowed since despite service of summons in the prescribed format, the petitioner/tenant opted not to file application seeking leave to contest the proceedings. On service of notice of the present proceedings, the respondent/landlord entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.

2. Briefly stated, relevant circumstances extracted from pleadings and records are as follows. The present respondent, claiming himself to be the owner and landlord in respect of the shop bearing private No. A (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises") in the larger premises bearing No. 3506, Beadon Pura, Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi filed eviction petition against the present petitioner on the ground that he bona fide required the subject premises for his residential use and occupation. The learned Additional Rent Controller issued summons in the prescribed format against the present petitioner through ordinary process as well as by registered post. The summons sent through ordinary process returned with the reports dated 29.09.2014, 15.10.2014 and 21.10.2014 of the process server that on 29.09.2014 the premises were found locked and on the next two dates, the present petitioner was not found in the premises. The summons sent through registered post returned with the report of refusal. Treating the refusal report as deemed service of summons, followed by failure on the part of the present petitioner to file application for leave to contest, the learned Additional Rent Controller passed the impugned eviction order after hearing learned counsel for both sides. Hence, the present petition by the tenant.

3. During arguments, learned counsel for petitioner/tenant took me through records and contended that the impugned eviction order was obtained by the respondent/landlord playing fraud on court. It was submitted that the petitioner/tenant was never served with the summons and it is only on 20.01.2015 that from one Chander Mohan, he came to know about some case listed on 21.01.2015, so he approached the court and apprised the court of facts; and that it is the son in law of the present respondent who had informed Chander Mohan that on 21.01.2015 an eviction order would be passed. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/landlord strongly opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner/tenant was deliberately evading service of summons, so he was correctly deemed to be served with the summons on the basis of postal report of refusal. Learned counsel for respondent/landlord also contended that the story of the petitioner/tenant having been informed about the eviction proceedings by the person named Chander Mohan is completely unbelievable, especially because no such story was placed before the learned Additional Rent Controller. In rebuttal arguments, learned counsel for petitioner/tenant referred to the judgments in the cases title Bishan Swaroop (since deceased) through LRs vs Manish Sethi & Ors, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 899; Devender Nath vs Mohd Asim, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4014; Jor Singh vs Sanjeev Sharma, 2013 SCC OnLine 4883; Dharma Pal & Anr vs Meena Sharma, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1215; M/s Gajanand Hari Shankar vs Col. (Retd) Ajai Singh Virk, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4825 Sonal Mansingh vs Beena Om Prakash, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3818; Rakesh Kumar vs M/s Shri Ram Palace, 2011 SCC OnLine 1377; and Apabhai Motibhai Patel vs Laxmichand Zaverchand & Co., 1953 SCC OnLine Bom 62.

4. To begin with, all the judgments referred to by learned counsel for petitioner/tenant are based on individual factual matrix of each case and the only extent to which these judgments