DALIP KUMAR Vs. SADRI CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts as they emerge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties are that the Respondent-Landlord had filed an eviction petition against the Petitioner/Tenant of the grounds of 14(l)(a) and (c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. What is material for the present purposes is the assertion that the premises were let to the'Tenant for residential purpose only but he was misusing the same without the consent of the Landlord by running a Restaurant/Dhaba from the tenanted premises. Mr. B.L. Mehra, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Tenant submits that his evidence was earlier closed but on filing an application he was permitted another opportunity to lead evidence and he examined Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The eviction petition was filed as far back as in July 1994. In the course of examining Respondents 3 and 4, it transpired that a No Objection' had been given in favour of the Tenant for running the Dhaba. There is no pleading to the effect that a No Objection' had been obtained by the Tenant and hence the Landlord could not have been aware that 'he had to meet this aspect of the defence. Despite this fact, evidence was received by the Court.

(2.) Be that as it may , at that stage the Landlord sought leave. to place on record documents evidencing the date on which he had purchased the property in order, to, invalidate the 'No Objection' previously allegedly obtained. This prayer was declined and the application was dismissed. It need hardly be stated, but appears necessary to do so, that a Landlord will always endeavour not to delay the disposal of his petition and hence there may be good reason for the Court to be more (hereinafter referred to as 'the ARC') perforce had to be adjourned from time to time. The Tenant on appearing before the ARC, therefore, would have specific knowledge of the pendency of the Appeal before the ARCT. It is difficult to believe that the Tenant would not have made necessary enquiries in the Court of the ARCT. Be that as it may, on 30.10.2000, the ARCT had recorded that the Tenant had been served by way of affixation. Being fully satisfied of service he had proceeded ex parte against the Tenant. Keeping in perspective the fact that the Tenant would not stand to lose or be prejudiced by any delay in the proceedings, .knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings before the ARCT must be assumed, as well a jural presumption of the adoption by the Tenant of dilatory tactics. This is the stark reality.

(3.) There is no merit in the argument that merely because the Tenant was not served by the beat of drums', the satisfaction recorded by the ARCT of service was irregular thereby calling for interference by the High Court. Already, prior to this mode of service, notices had been issued on previous occasions. Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the Petitioner herein on Union of India v. Sri Laxmi Oil Mills, AIR , 1984 Patna 252. But the ratio of that judgment must rest on its own facts. The Court in that .case did not have to consider the repeated adjournments granted by the Lower Court to await the outcome of the Appeal. In matters concerning service of the adversary, a pragmatic attitude must be pursued by the Court. Thus, even if formal compliance on this aspect appears to have been carried out. Courts always endeavour to ensure that actual notice has been received by the non-applicant. This does not mandate that if two modes of service are ordered, and the Court is satisfied that the, non applicant had actual notice of the proceedings, the Court must nonetheless mindlessly, mechanically and stubbornly require service by both methods should be effected. This would lead to absurd results and cause inordinate delay which delay in itself defeat justice. It is possible that the next time around the non-applicant may avoid service by the other mode. The crucial question and consideration is the conscious satisfaction of the Court that service has been effected and the opposite party had knowledge of the pending proceeding.