PUNJAB BEARING TRADERS Vs. MOHAMMAD JAMEEL KHAN LODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned before this court is the order dated 18.9.2009 wherein the eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRCA) had been decreed; the application for leave to defend filed by the tenant had been dismissed.

(2.) Record shows that an eviction petition seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA had been filed. Summons in terms of the impugned order had been served upon the defendant on 18.07.2009. Contention of the petitioner before this court is that a perusal of the summons clearly shows that there was a next date of hearing mentioned therein which was noted as 08.09.2009; the tenant was under a bonafide impression that he had to appear in court on 08.09.2009 which he did. This had led to a confusion in his mind which had been deliberately created which in turn amounts to a fraud. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court titled as Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi & Ors., 2003 8 SCC 319 titled as Rani Aloka Dudhoria and Ors. v. Goutam Dudhoria & Ors, 2009 13 SCC 569 as also another judgment of the Apex Court titled as Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala and Anr, 2006 7 SCC 416 to support his submission that the commission of a fraud on the court and suppression of material facts are core issues which vitiate every solemn act; fraud and justice never dwell together; the summons amounting to a fraud, did not amount to a valid service; impugned order in these circumstances not entertaining the application for leave to defend of the tenant holding that it was filed beyond the period of 15 days which period was counted with effect from 18.07.2009 suffers from a clear infirmity.

(3.) It is submitted that this summons are even otherwise defective as they were not in prescribed format which has been prescribed in the third Schedule of the DRCA; there is a format which does not mention any next date of hearing; in these summons next date of hearing had been noted as 08.09.2009 which had led to the confusion as the defendant is a lay person. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment tiled as Abdul Salam v. Hans Raj, 1996 RLR 71 to support his submission that summons which are not in prescribed format do not amount to a valid service. Further submission being that even otherwise the bonafide requirement of the petitioner had not been made out and this is clear from the perusal of the eviction petition.