KRISHAN LAL Vs. MUKUND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on behalf of the tenant challenges the order dated May 19,1980 passed by the Additional Controller, Delhi. By the impugned order the Additional Controller passed the order for eviction as no application for leave to contest was filed by the petitioner within 15 days of service of the summons.

(2.) The respondent-landlord filed eviction application on March, 27, 1980. Summons was ordered to be issued in the prescribed form and the case was fixed for May 15, 1980. It appears that the landlord did not file the registered cover but paid the process fee only. The summons issued in the ordinary manner on the prescribed form was personally served upon the petitioner on April 16, 1980. The petitioner on May5, 1980 filed an application stating that he was served on April 16, 1980 with the summons along with a copy of the eviction application, which was not in the prescribed form i.e , form 'A' under the Delhi Rent Control Rules and as such there was no proper service. He prayed that he be got supplied a copy of the application on the proper form to enable him to file an application for leave to contest. The Additional controller by the impugned order held that contentions raised by the tenant could have been heard if the tenant had come within the statutory period of 15 days. No application for leave to contest was filed by the petitioner. The Additional Controller, therefore, passed the eviction order. The petitioner has come up in revision.

(3.) The main contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner has not been issued summons in accordance with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 25B of the Act. He says that the summons ought to have been issued in the ordinary manner as well as by registered post and if he has not been served by registered post there is no compliance with Section 25B(3) of the Act and as such there was no proper service upon him. Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Act requires the Controller to issue summons in the ordinary manner as well as by registered A.D. post for service on the tenant. " This section or any other section of the Act, however, does not provide the consequences for not issuing registered cover containing the summons to the tenant. The object of sub-section (3) of Section 25B of the Act is that the tenant be served personally. The Legislature has taken the precaution for the issue of summons to the tenant in all the possible ways. This sub-section provides service in the ordinary manner as well as by registered post and if necessary by publication in a newspaper. All the methods have been provided just to make summary procedure a speedy one but there is no provision that if personal service has been effected in one of the ways, failure to get served by registered A.D. post as required bysub-section (3) of Section 25B would wipe out the personal service effected in the ordinary manner. Thus it seems to me that though sub-section (3) of Section 25B prescribes service in both ways on the tenant but if the tenant has been served personally in one of the ways the service is proper service within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 25B of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 25B further provides that the tenant is to apply for leave to contest. This section speaks of service either in the ordinary way or by registered post. In other words it means that if the tenant has been served by one of the ways mentioned in sub-section (3) he is required to obtain leave in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Chaman Lal Sareen v. Sq. Ldr. Ved Prakash, 1980 (1) R.C.R. 300, wherein it has been observed that the Controller has to issue summons to a tenant in the ordinary manner as well as by registered cover and that if summons sent in ordinary manner was refused by the tenant it would not mean valid service. In that case it appears the summons sent in the ordinary manner only was not personally served upon the tenant and therefore it was held that there was no service as no attempt was made to effect service by registered post. Mr. Chaudhary also relies upon Om Prakash v. Brij Nath Sharma, (1980) D.L.T. 313, wherein also the observation is that the tenant is to be served in the ordinary manner as well as by registered post.