PUSHPA RANI Vs. SUNITA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order impugned before this Court is the order dated 25.01.2000 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal which has reversed the findings of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 21.05.1999.

(2.) RECORD shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlady Sunita Rani against her tenant Pushpa Rani under Section 14 (1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). Prior to filing of the eviction petition, a legal notice dated 18.09.1997 was served upon the respondent. This legal notice made a reference of two addresses of the tenant i.e. (i) Shop No. E-24, Chander Nagar, Delhi and (ii) residential address No. 2484/3D, Park Marg, Street No. 8, Rajgarh Extension, Delhi-110031.

(3.) RECORD discloses that the legal notice sent at his second address had come back with the report that his address has since changed. Service report of the tenant in the eviction petition (shop No. E-24, Chander Nagar, Delhi) had come back with the remarks that the premises are lying locked. In these circumstances, the tenant was proceeded ex-parte. This ex-parte judgment dated 01.06.1998 was passed in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. The possession of the premises was also taken over by the landlord sometime in December, 1998. On 29.01.1999, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ,,Code) had been filed by the tenant seeking setting aside of ex-parte decree dated 01.06.1998. Contention being that she was never served with the summons of the eviction petition and she learnt about it only on 28.01.1999 when the bailiff had come to take possession; an application for restitution had also been filed.