The importance of carefully examining the service of summons and the tenant's obligation to file an application for leave to contest after being served.

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.

GIRISH

KATHPALIA

Digitally signed by GIRISH

KATHPALIA

Date: 2024.03.14 14:23:26 +05'30'

Digitally Signed

By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN

Signing Date:14.03.2024

17:36:25

Signature Not Verified

RC.REV. 90/2015 Page 2 of 10 pages

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

GIRISH

KATHPALIA

Digitally signed by GIRISH

KATHPALIA

Date: 2024.03.14 14:23:10 +05'30'

Digitally Signed

By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN

Signing Date:14.03.2024

17:36:25

Signature Not Verified

RC.REV. 90/2015 Page 3 of 10 pages

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 89