SONAL MANSINGH Vs. BEENA OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the petitioner-tenant, who claims herself to be a recipient of Padma Bhushan and Padma Vibhushan awards has questioned the legality and propriety of the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller directing her eviction from the ground floor of a residential property in Defence Colony which she has been occupying as a tenant since the year 1976. The eviction order has been passed in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) filed by her landlady, the respondent herein, on the ground that she required the premises in the occupation of the petitioner-tenant bona fide for her own use and which, according to the respondent-landlady, should have been voluntarily vacated by the petitioner?tenant accepting her bona fide requirement because of her ailments as also of her 78 years old husband.

(2.) THE eviction order has been impugned by the petitioner-tenant since it has been passed without any opportunity to her to defend the eviction petition. THE trial Court record shows that on 06-06-09 when the eviction petition was taken up for the first time after it had been filed the trial Court had ordered issuance of summons of the petition as prescribed under Third Schedule of the Delhi Rent Control Act by ordinary process as well by registered post, acknowledgement due returnable for 26-08-09. On 26-08-09 the trial Court recorded that the summons sent by ordinary process had not been served while that sent by registered post had been received back with the report of the postman that the respondent(petitioner-tenant herein) had refused to take the summons on 18-08-09. In view of that report of the postman the trial Court recorded that the tenant was deemed to have been served with the summons on 18-08-09 but adjourned the case to 24-09-09 since by that time the prescribed period of fifteen days for filing leave to contest application by the tenant was not over. On 24-09-09 eviction order was passed against the petitioner-tenant because of her failure to apply for leave to defend the eviction petition within the prescribed period of fifteen days from 18th August, 2009.

(3.) AS far as the two decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned trial Court while refusing to set aside the eviction order are concerned they are not applicable in the present case since in both those cases the tenant had undisputedly received the summons of the eviction petition of the landlord filed on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises but the application for leave to defend was filed beyond the prescribed period along with an application for condonation of delay in moving the leave application. In those circumstances the Supreme Court had held that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the leave application after condoning the delay in filing the same. However, in the case in hand, no condonation of delay was sought by the petitioner-tenant in moving the leave to defend application but setting aside of the eviction order was sought on the ground that she had not been served at all with any summons of the eviction petition and she had come to know about the eviction order only when the bailiff had come to the tenanted premises to execute the same.