SANTOSH JAIN Vs. PRAVEEN KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN eviction petition was filed by Smt. Santosh Jain, the Petitioner under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') on 28th September, 2010 for eviction of the tenanted premises in occupation of the Respondents Praveen Kumar Gupta and Manbhav Gupta on the ground that the tenanted premises was required bonafidely for her son who after having established as a lawyer requires the same to set up his law office.

(2.) IN the Eviction Petition No. 139/2010 the learned ARC issued notice on 28th September, 2010. Respondent No. 1, Praveen Kumar Gupta was served by the Process Server through his employee on 13th October, 2010. Respondent No. 1 was also served through the Registered Post but the date was not legible. Since no leave to defend was filed within 15 days of the service of the process on 13th October, 2010 vide order dated 23rd December, 2010, the eviction petition of Santosh Jain was allowed and an eviction order was passed against Praveen Kumar Gupta and Manbhav Gupta directing them to vacate Shop Nos. 4750 -51, Plot No. 8, Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi -110006, that is, the tenanted premises.

(3.) A review petition was filed by Praveen Kumar and Manbhav contending that the service of summons to the Respondents through Registered AD Post was never tendered to the Respondents at the tenanted premises. Sanjay Gupta, on whom summons were served, through ordinary process, was never their employee. Manbhav was not carrying on any business from the tenanted premises at the time when the service was effected but was working as Management Trainee with Phoenix and was not present in the tenanted premises on 13th October, 2010. Sanjay Gupta was not an employee of Praveen Kumar. Since no process came to be served on Praveen and Manbhav on 13th October, 2010 the order is required to be reviewed.