NIRMALA KAPOOR Vs. ARUN KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by Smt. Nirmala Kapur (hereinafter referred to as the landlady) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 9th May, 1994 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 22nd January, 1994 of Shri P.C. Ranga, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the landlady filed a petition bearing No.E-9/91 on 18th January, 1991 under Section 14 (I)(b) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the Act) against the respondents 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as the tenants) and Shri Sanjeev Kumar, (hereinafter referred to as the 'alleged tenant') alleging therein that the tenants had wrongfully, without the knowledge and consent of the landlady sub-let, assigned or parted with the possession of the premises bearing No.Y-14B, Green Park (Main), New Delhi to Shri Sanjeev Kumar. It may be noted here that prior to filing of this petition, the landlady had filed against the tenants two other petitions bearing No.E- 284/84 under Section 14(1)(e) and bearing No.E-125/85 under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act which are pending in the Court of Shri N.K. Goel, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

(3.) Summons in the petition bearing No. E9/91 were issued on I8th January, 1991 both by ordinary process and registered A.D. post for 27th February, 1991. From the lower court records, it appears that the process fee on behalf of the petitioner/landlord was filed in the Court of Shri Rakesh Kapur, A.R.C. on 24th January, 1991 and there is no mention of Registered A.D. covers having been filed alongwith the process fee form. The records also show that the alleged subtenant was served on 23rd February, 1991 by ordinary process but the tenants were not served bv ordinary process and as per report recorded on the basis of statement of the alleged sub-tenant they were not found at the premises. The records, however, contain three A.D. cards which show that the tenants were served through Manju Sharma who is respondent No.3 in the present case. It may be noted here that the records do not contain A.D. card regarding service on Sanjeev Kumar, the alleged sub-tenant nor the registered cover which could have been received back without service. The records, however, do not contain postal receipts with regard to the Regd. covers alleged to have been sent to the tenants and Sanjeev Kumar.