BEHARI LAL LAL CHAND Vs. DEEPAK RAJ NARULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'RCT') quashing the order of the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the 'ARC') dated 09.07.2015 and remanding the matter back for fresh consideration after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties to lead evidence by summoning handwriting expert to prove as to whether the signatures appearing on the notice/summons sent through process server and those appearing on the AD Card were that of the respondent.

(2.) The brief facts which led to filing of the petition are that the petitioner/landlord filed an eviction petition against the respondent/tenant under Sec. 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act') in respect of the shop No. 10211, WEA, Padam Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. Summons were ordered to be issued to the respondent returnable for 05.09.1991. Summons came back by ordinary process and registered AD as served. As none appeared for the respondent, he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 05.09.1991. On 22.10.1992, the ARC passed an order under Sec. 15(1) of the DRC Act directing the respondent to pay arrears of rent within one month. It further ordered that in case of non-compliance of the order, eviction order would be passed. On 27.11.1992, as there was non-compliance of the aforesaid order, an eviction order was passed against the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the execution petition. On receipt of service of the execution petition, the respondent filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil P.C. for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction. The said application was dismissed by the ARC on 25.07.2003. In appeal, the RCT also dismissed the appeal by order dated 08.04.2005. In CM(M) No. 1235/2005 this court by order dated 03.09.2007 remanded the matter back to the ARC to decide afresh the application of the respondent/tenant under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil P.C. after permitting both sides to lead evidence on the question as to whether the tenant was served with the summons of the eviction petition or not. The ARC was also directed to conclude the matter within a period of six months. The parties thereafter led their evidence. By order dated 09.07.2015, the ARC dismissed the application of the respondent under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC.

(3.) The respondent filed an appeal. By the impugned order the RCT has allowed the appeal and passed directions as noted above. The RCT noted that the short question for consideration was as to whether the respondent was duly served with the notice. It concluded that this was the only relevant issue and would require consideration as to whether the signatures appearing on the notice/summons or the AD Card were actually of the respondent or not. It further noted that instead of going into this vital aspect, the ARC had adverted to other facts and had in fact formed his own opinion on a comparison of the signatures on the summons and on the AD card with the signatures appearing on the legal notice dated 02.07.1990 and concluded that the signatures affixed on the AD Card and on the summons are of the respondents. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed quashing the order of the ARC and remanding the matter back to the ARC with a direction to afford to the parties reasonable opportunity to lead evidence by summoning handwriting expert.