DHARAM PAL Vs. MEENA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (`the Act' in short) is against the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller whereby an eviction order has been passed against the petitioners-tenants in respect of one shop under their tenancy on the ground floor of property no. IX-6933, Prem Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `the tenanted shop') because of their failure to seek leave to contest the eviction petition filed against them by their landlady, respondent herein, under Section 14(1)(e) of the `Act' within the prescribed period of fifteen days from the date of service of summons, which was by way of affixation of summons on 4.12.08 and which was considered to be good service by the learned Additional Rent Controller.

(2.) THE respondent-landlady had filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Act against the petitioners on 31.5.2008. On 02.06.2008 the Additional Rent Controller ordered issuance of summons to the petitioner-tenant under Schedule III of the Act returnable for 25.09.08. THE summons were ordered to be sent by ordinary process as well as by registered post but the same were returned back unserved. On 25.09.2008 issuance of fresh summons returnable for 04.12.08 was ordered, but this time the learned counsel while ordering issuance of summons by ordinary process as well as by registered post ordered service by way of affixation also. THEre is no dispute that this time also the petitioner-tenant was not served personally by the process server and that no summons were issued by registered post. THE process server, however, had affixed the summons at the tenanted shop on 04.12.08 when he went there since the shop was found locked at the time of his visit that day.

(3.) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that Section 25-B(3) of the Act, which deals with the modes of service of summons upon a tenant, does not provide for service of summons by way of affixation as was ordered by the learned Additional Rent Controller in the present case and therefore, relying upon service of summons by way of affixation and considering the same to be a good service upon the petitioner-tenant the learned Additional Rent Controller was not justified in passing the eviction order against him.