GULSHAN ARORA Vs. POMEY PLASTIC WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this petition is filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') however it ought to have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India since it is a petition filed against ordering of fresh summons upon the respondent/tenant and a revision can be filed under Section 25B(8) of the Act only against the dismissal of a leave to defend. Therefore, the present petition is treated as a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner/landlord impugning the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 17.5.2014, by which judgment the Rent Controller has held that summons in the bonafide necessity eviction petition were not validly served upon the tenant and therefore since the 15 days statutory period did not start for filing of the leave to defend application, the leave to defend application filed was not barred by time. The admitted facts from the record are that summons in the bonafide necessity eviction petition were not served upon the tenant but upon his relative Sh. Prashant Nayyar on 3.2.2014 and this aspect is noted in para 5 of the impugned judgment and which reads as under: -

(3.) THE issue is that whether the statutory period of 15 days begins on 3.2.2014 when the respondent/tenant was served through Sh. Prashant Nayyar or when the respondent/tenant on 13.3.2014 came to know that actually the summons which were received were not in an ordinary case but was in a special procedure case for bonafide necessity eviction petition which requires filing of leave to defend application within 15 days.