CHITRANJAN MEDICOS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) respondent filed an eviction petition u/Ss. 14C and 14D, Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988 against Narinder Singh-petitioner tenant for eviction from suit premises No. L-1V/24, Old D.S., Lajpat Nagar III. The processes under Schedule III of the Act were issued to the tenant, who in turn filed an application for leave to defend supported by an affidavit on 20.2.1989. Along with this application, an application for condonation of delay u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. The Rent Controller observed that service of summons on the tenant was effected on 25.1.1989 by registered post and the application seeking leave to defend was filed on 22.2.1989 i.e. after expiry of 15 days and that he had no jurisdiction to condone the delay. Accepting the averments in the eviction petition as correct, an order of eviction was passed against the tenant on 20.11.1990 u/S. 14C and 14D of the Act. The order was made executable after 2 months.

(2.) Petitioner thereafter filed an application u/Order 37 Rule 4 r.w.S. 151, Civil Procedure Code seeking the relief that eviction order passed on 20.11.90 be set aside and he be permitted to defend the eviction petition. The grounds taken in this application were that he was not personally served with the summons issued under Schedule III of the Act. He was out of Delhi 'from 24-1-90 to 2-2-90" (in his earlier application dt. 20.2.89 for condonation of delay the period of his absence was mentioned as 23.1.89 to 31.1.89) and his family consists of himself his wife and two minor children. His wife found a few papers lying at the door and when he returned back tKo Delhi he got busy in his work and his wife forgot to hand over those papers to him. His wife did not know that those papers were summons in the eviction petition. It was on 17.2.89 that he came to know about those summons and he handed over the pers to his counsel on 18.2.88 who filed an application on 20.2.89 seeking leave to defend and in these circumstances there is sufficient ground for setting aside the order passed against him and that his application seeking leave to defend may be allowed.

(3.) The averments made by the tenant in his application were controverted by the respodent. It has been averred that the tenant has falsely stated that he was out of Delhi from 24.1.90 to 2.2.90. The plea taken by him in earlier application for condonation of delay was that he was out of Delhi during the period 23.1.89 to 31.1.89 and it contradicts his stand that he was out of Delhi from 24-1-90 to 30.1.91. There is a certificate issued by the postal authorities that the registered cover (Regd. letter No. 4659 dated 24.1.89) was delivered to Narinder Singh on 25.1.1989. There are no grounds for setting aside the order and allowing the tenant to re-agitate the matter on his application filed seeking leave to defend.