GULSHAN SINGH Vs. SUKHJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the landlord Sukhjeet Singh, respondent herein, had filed an eviction petition against the tenant, petitioner herein, under section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Summons in the prescirbed form in Third Schedule of the delhi Rent Control Act were ordered to be issued to the petitioner tenants in the ordinary way as well as by registered post. The Addl. Rent Controller found that petitioner No.2 Pawan Deep Singh was served on 20.12.99, whereas, petitioner No.3 to 5 were served in December, 1988 and petitioner No.1 was served through his mother on 30.12.1988. As the application seeking leave to defend was not filed within fifteen days from the date of service, so the Addl Rent Controller believing the version of the respondent landlord in the eviction petition passed an eviction order against the petitioner under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act vide order dated 24.1.1991. However, six months time was granted to vacate the premises in suit.

(2.) Aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed by the tenants. The main grievance of the petitioners are that the Addl. Rent Controller has not correctly penused the order sheets and wrongly held that the petitioners were duly served as required under Section 25B(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. According to the counsel for the petitioners, as per the order dated 26.4.89, the Addl. Rent Controller observed that the petitioners 2 to 4 had been served and petitioner no.l had not been served and fresh summons were ordered to be issued for service on petitioner No,. I for 10.8.89. Petitioner No.l was not served personally either through the process server or by registered post. Though petitioner No.1 was not served personally, yet the petitioners filed an application under Section 25b(4) on 25.5.89, seeking leave to defend but that application was dismissed as barred by time. According to the counsel, the Addl. Rent. Controller Controller failed to apply its mind and did not appreciate that the petitioner No. 1 was never served in accordance with the provisions of Section 25B(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Service of summons on. the mother cannot be said to be proper service within the meaning of Section 25B of the Act.

(3.) The counsel for respondent, however, countered the argument of the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the notices sent in the ordinary way were received by the mother respondent No.3 for self and for others on 9.10.88. This is sufficient service on the petitioners herein who were joint tenants. Leave application was not filed within fifteen days from 9.10.1988 and so the Addl. Rent Controller correctly rejected the application seeking leave to defend and the order of eviction is justified and legal.