PUSHPA SONI Vs. SARBATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the tenant/petitioner has assailed the order of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing her review petition filed under Section 25B(9) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act). The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/landlady had filed a petition for the eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act. Notice/Summons were ordered on 9.7.1999 returnable on 9.8.1999. The tenants were not served either by the ordinary process or by registered post acknowledgment due. The order was repeated on the next date of hearing and service was ordered returnable on 1.9.1999. But again the tenants were not served, The reports were to the effect that Shri Anil Soni was out of station; Shri Kishore Soni did not reside at the premises; and Smt. Pushpa Soni had gone outof Delhi. In this sequence, an application dated 31/08/1999 had been filed by the landlady under Order V Rule 19A/20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in paragraph 4 of this application it is stated that "there are contradictory reports on the summons, which clearly show that the respondent in the aforesaid facts and circumstances cannot be served without alternative mode of service". The landlady's logic by which she had arrived at the conclusion that the tenant could be served duly by the alternative mode, is far from evident. Be that as it may, on 1.9.1999 the Additional Rent Controller allowed the application of the landlady for service of notice/summons on the tenants by publication in the National Herald. Publication was carried out and when the case came up for consideration on 6.10.1999, the Additional Rent Controller observed that the tenant had been served by way of publication in the National Herald dated 15.9.1999. As no application for leave to defend/contest the eviction proceedings within the stipulated period of fifteen days has been filed, eviction orders were passed. On that date however, the tenant was represented by his Advocate.

(2.) Thereafter,an application under Section 25-B(9) read with OrderXLVII Rule 1 had been filed by the tenant. This application, as mentioned above, had been rejected and the eviction order has been sustained.

(3.) It has been contended before me by Mr. O.P. Varma, learned Counsel appearing for the tenant that a miscarriage of justice has been occasioned. It was asserted by him that the tenant had not been-served in the petition either by registered post acknowledgment due or in the ordinary manner by the Process Server. Knowledge of the pendency of the eviction petition appears to have been gained by the tenant in a most novel but incredible way, i.e. by the tenant having overheard a conversation in which there was a mention of the eviction petition by the landlady. I had observed in the course of hearing that perhaps it would only be the tenants and no one else who would believe this fantastic version. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that while ordering service on the tenants by publication, the Additional Rent Controller had overlooked the relevant and mandatory provisions of law, in that, simultaneous service in the ordinary manner/ and by registered post acknowledgment due, had been given a goby.