(1.) Order impugned before this Court is the judgment dated 12.07.2011 whereby the eviction petition filed by Mohd. Haroon Japanwal (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) against Ram Kishan & Sons through its partner Sh. P.K. Khanna (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) had been decreed; the application seeking leave to defend had been dismissed. The Court had returned a finding that there is a delay of one day in filing the application for leave to defend and the Rent Controller has no power to condone the delay; the application seeking leave to defend could not be taken on record.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by this Order. His submission is that in fact service of summons had not been served upon the tenant in the prescribed form. Attention has been drawn to the provisions of Section 25-B (2)(3) & (4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA); submission being that the service has to be effected upon the tenant in strict compliance of the aforenoted procedure; this is as per the form prescribed in the IIIrd Schedule of the DRCA; it is submitted that admittedly in this case there is no service by registered A.D. and the summons which have allegedly been served upon the tenant in the ordinary manner also bears the signatures of one Mr. Rajender Prasad who although an employee of the company was not duly authorized to receive the summons on behalf of the tenant; attention has been drawn to the report of the process server dated 22.07.2008 as also the subsequent report dated 28.07.2008 which report had noted a valid service of summons upon the tenant.
(3.) The application for leave to defend had been filed on 13.08.2008. On 12.07.2011, an application had been filed by the tenant through his Advocate (same Advocate who had filed the application seeking leave to defend) wherein he had stated that even presuming that there is a delay of one day, without prejudice to his rights, he had sought condonation of delay of the aforenoted one day. It is in this background that the impugned judgment had been passed.