IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to file an application for leave to contest despite the service of summons in the prescribed format justifies an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT

Girish Kathpalia, J. - By way of this petition, brought under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner/tenant has assailed eviction order dated 16.05.2023 passed by the Additional Rent Controller because the petitioner/tenant failed to file application for leave to contest the proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. On notice of these proceedings, respondent/landlord entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides and examined the digitized trial court record.

2. Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows.

2.1. The present respondent claiming himself to be the owner of premises bearing no.AF-6A, Ground Floor, Janta Flats, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises") filed eviction petition against the present petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, pleading that the present petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the subject premises on 01.05.2010 for a period of 11 months only but despite expiry of that period, he did not vacate the subject premises, so the present respondent filed a Civil Suit for recovery of possession, which was dismissed on the ground that the same was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act; that the present respondent is in bona fide requirement of the subject premises for himself and his family consisting of his wife and two sons aged 24 and 21 years; that the present respondent is currently residing in first floor premises no.2103, Outram Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi and second floor of the said property is in use and occupation of his mother; and that the present respondent has no reasonably suitable alternate accommodation.

2.2. According to the record, despite specific order of the Additional Rent Controller for issuance of summons in the prescribed format, the Ahlmad of that court issued summons for settlement of issues, as are issued in civil suits. On service of those summons, the present petitioner continued to appear on few dates and even filed written statement, but thereafter stopped appearing.

2.3. After a few dates, the Additional Rent Controller realized the issuance of summons in wrong format, so fresh summons in format prescribed under Schedule III to the Delhi Rent Control Act were ordered and issued. The said summons in prescribed format were served on the present petitioner through his brother Anil Kumar on 23.11.2021 at the subject premises. Even thereafter, the present petitioner appeared before the Additional Rent Controller but opted not to file any application seeking leave to contest.

2.4. Before the Additional Rent Controller, the present petitioner contended that Anil Kumar, who had received the summons in prescribed format is not his brother and not authorized to accept summons on his behalf. Rejecting this contention by reasoned order, the Additional Rent Controller proceeded to pass the impugned eviction order, holding that since despite service of summons the present petitioner did not file application seeking leave to contest, pleadings of the present respondent in the eviction petition were deemed admitted.

2.5. Hence, the present petition.

3. During arguments, learned counsel for petitioner/tenant took me through the above record and contended that since the service of summons in prescribed format was not on the present petitioner, there was no occasion for him to file application for leave to contest. Learned counsel for petitioner/tenant also submitted alternate contention that the Additional Rent Controller ought to have treated the written statement as application for leave to contest, as held by a coordinate bench of this court in the case titled: Shri Rambir Singh vs Smt. Balwant Kaur Choudhary & Anr., 2010:DHC:2111.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/landlord supported the impugned eviction order contending that the judicial precedent cited on behalf of the petitioner/tenant is completely distinguishable.