A P JAIN Vs. RAJESH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that on the application filed by the defendant under Section 25 -B(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) read with Order XXXVII Rule 4 and Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ,,Code), the prayer made in the application had been allowed and the ex -parte judgment dated 10.11.2009 had been set aside.

(2.) THE facts are in a narrow compass. Record shows that an eviction petition has been filed by the landlord A.P. Jain against his tenant Rajesh Gupta; demised premises have been described as property bearing shops No. 2 & 3, F -14/17, Model Town, Delhi. Admittedly service was ordered to be effected by two modes i.e. by the ordinary mode and registered A.D. The ARC had noted that the service by the ordinary mode was effected on 03.10.2009; the said service report has been perused. It had been received by one Manoj Kumar. Vehement contention of the tenant in his application (seeking setting aside of the ex -parte judgment dated 10.11.2009) was to the effect that he does not know any person by the name of Manoj; he is neither related to him and nor his employee. The second mode of service deployed was service through registered A.D.; registered A.D. envelope had come back served with an illegible initial on the A.D. card; address of the tenant has been described as shops No. 2 & 3, F -14/17, Model Town, Delhi. There is no dispute that this is the address of the tenanted premises. Vehement contention of the applicant is that this A.D. card was never served upon him; the summons should have been served personally or through some responsible adult member; contention was that this service report has been managed as it does not bear the signatures or initial of any person of the family of the tenant or any other person who is even known to him.

(3.) ARGUMENTS have been countered. It is submitted that the proceedings under Section 25 -B of the DRCA entail strong repercussions and the service report must be clear and comprehensible; it is reiterated that service has not been effected as the A.D. Card does not bear the signatures of any family member of the tenant and even presuming that the provisions of Order 5 Rule 15 of the Code are attracted, service has to be effected on an adult member of the family which is clearly not so in the instant case.