SURINDER SINGH Vs. V K JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous (Main) petition has been filed by the petitioner-landlord who filed an petition in the court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The brief facts are as follows :- The petitioner filed an eviction petition on 13-2-1987 against the respondent. The Additional Rent Controller issued summons as provided under Section 25B(2) and 3(a) of the Act to the res- pondent by ordinary process as well as by registered A.D. post. The summons were served on the respondent by ordinary process on 22-3-1987 but the registered A.D. summons could not issue because of shortage of postal stamps on registered A.D. cover. The eviction petition was listed before the Additional Rent Controller on 27-5-1987 and the petitioner prayed that eviction order be passed because the respondent had not chosen to file an application for leave to defend within the prescribed time. The Addl. Rent Controller by his order dated 7-5-1987 observed that since Section 25-B(3)(a) provides that summons be issued even by registered A.D. post and the summons could not be issued because of paucity of stamps it was necessary that the respondent be served by registered A.D. post as well. He. therefore, directed issuance of summons to the respondent by Registered AD. post again. Accordingly, the petitioner took steps to get the respondent served again by ordinary process as well as by registered A.D. post The respondent was again served by ordinary process on 26-12-1987 but the A.D. card was not received back. The Addl. Rent Controller did not consider that to be sufficient service on the respondent and again directed fresh summons to be issued to the respondent. The petitioner, therefore, took steps to ensure that the summons were duly served on the respondent and ultimately on 9-1-1988 got the summons served on the respondent by registered A.D. post. The A.D. card was filed in court. The Additional Rent Controller in his order dated 3-2-1988 took note of service on the respondent by registered A.D. post. Inspite of this service of summons neither the respondent filed appearance nor filed an application for leave to defend The case was again listed before the Additional Rent Controller on several dates thereafter till 1-6-1988 but the Additional Rent Controller refused to pass an order of eviction though the respondent had neither filed appearance nor any application for leave to defend. Thereafter, of course the file was sent to this Court because the petitioner feeling aggrieved by the procedure adopted by the Addl. Rent Controller filed the present petition.

(3.) It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 25-B of the Act requires summons to be issued both by ordinary process as well as by registered A D.cover However, Sub-section (4) of Section 25 B provides that service of summons either by ordinary process or by registered A.D. post is .enough and if the tenant defaults in putting in appearance in pursuance of the summons and does not file an application for leave to defend and contest the eviction petition, the Controller is re quired to proceed with the cage and pass an eviction order 'forthwith, Learned counsel submitted that in any event on 26-12-1987 when the summons were served on the respondent on the by ordinary process the Addl. Rent Controller need not have waited for service report by registered A.D. post and ought to have proceeded to pass an order of eviction.