Civil Misc. (M) No. 889 of 2008 Page 1 of 9

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: 15.02.2010

Date of Order: 22^nd March, 2010

CM(M) No.889 of 2008

%

22.03.2010

SHRI GURDEV SINGH BINDRA

... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Manish Kohli &

Mr. Manjit Pathak,Advocate

Versus

RANBIR SINGH

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Ram Kishan Saini, Advocate.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the

judgment?

Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

Yes.

JUDGMENT

By this petition the petitioner has assailed an order dated 8^th May,

2008 of learned Rent Controller Tribunal (RCT). By an order dated 5^th

March, 2008 learned ARC had allowed an application of the respondent

under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 („CPC‟ for

short) and orders of eviction dated 7^th February, 2005 and 11^th May,

2005 were set aside. Learned RCT dismissed the appeal of petitioner

against order dated 5^th March, 2008.

Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposing of this petition are

that the petitioner was landlord in respect of shop No. 32, Shiv Market,

2010:DHC:1666

Civil Misc. (M) No. 889 of 2008 Page 2 of 9

Masjid Road, Bhogal, Jungpura, New Delhi. This shop was let out to

respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 135/-. The petitioner sent a notice

to the respondent making assertions inter-alia that the shop was initially

sub-let by respondent and thereafter it was lying locked. These

assertions are in paragraph No. 8 of the notice and read as under:

are not using the said premises.”

2. The above notice was addressed to the petitioner at his

residential address T-82, Church Lane, Bhogal, New Delhi. However,

apart from sending it at residential address of the petitioner, the notice

was also sent at the address of Shop No. 32, Shiv Market, Masjid Road,

Bhogal, Jangpura, New Delhi and at Ranbeer Electric Mart, 1758,

Bhagirath Place, New Delhi. All the three addresses were given at the

top of the notice alternatively.

3. A reply to the notice was received by the petitioner through

Advocate of the respondent. In the reply, para 8 of the notice was

replied as under:

2010:DHC:1666

Civil Misc. (M) No. 889 of 2008 Page 3 of 9

client is not using the tenanted premises.”

4. After this reply, the petitioner filed an eviction petition against the

respondent under Section 14(1) (a) (b) and (j) of the DRC Act. In the

eviction petition, the petitioner gave residential address of the

respondent as given in the notice and the tenanted shop address.

Notice of this petition was sent to the respondent at both the addresses.

The registered covers sent at both the addresses came back with a

report that the premises were lying locked since long. Ordinary process

was also received back with the noting of the Process Server that the

premises were locked. Thereafter, the Trial Court on an application

under Order V Rule 20 of CPC made by the petitioner, allowed

substituted service of respondent by way of publication of notice.

Notice of eviction petition was thus served through publication on the

respondent. None appeared for the respondent and the respondent

was proceeded ex-parte. On the basis of ex-parte evidence of the

2010:DHC:1666

Civil Misc. (M) No. 889 of 2008 Page 4 of 9

petitioner and after considering the documents filed by the petitioner,

the testimony of the witnesses, reply to notice sent by respondent, the

Trial Court dismissed the eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (a) but

allowed the eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (b) and (j) and passe