SATYA PAL JAIN Vs. KAILASH WATI GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlady/widow filed a petition under Section 14d of DRC Act for eviction of the petitioner. Notice of this petition was sent to the respondent through registered covers as well as through ordinary process and upc. As per the report of the process server, the respondent refused to receive the notice. He was then served through substituted service. Still no leave to defend was filed. So, the learned ARC passed an eviction order in respect of the premises on 8th October, 2002. A copy of the eviction order was also directed to be sent to the tenant. The tenant thereafter moved an application under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside this ex parte order alleging therein that he was never served with the summons and summons were not tendered either by post or through process server and he had not refused summons issued by the Court. He learnt about the case only on 4th december, 2002 when he came back from Punjab and found that some summons had come to the house in his absence from the Court for 18th November, 2002. The respondent then immediately contacted his counsel and directed him to do the needful who after enquiry came to know that the notice of passing eviction order has been sent to him.

(2.) IT was submitted that the reports of the process server on record of the ARC that summons were refused were false and procured reports. He had never refused the summons. The publication was made in 'national Herald' newspaper. He was not subscribing to this newspaper. According to petitioner his son, Sushil Jain had met the process server and told him that the petitioner was out of Delhi. However, process server gave a different and false report.

(3.) THE application was contested by the landlady who stated that the petitioner was keeping track of the proceedings. He deliberately first refused to receive the summons. The registered cover sent at his house came back undelivered. However, the registered covers was manipulated very cleverly and summons were seen and then put back and sent back. It was also submitted that summons were also sent by UPC and ordinary process and the petitioner had deliberately refused to receive the summons through court bailiff. Publication of summons was done only by way of abundant precaution. The petitioner had taken contradictory stand in his application. The application does not explain how he came to know on 4th December, 2002 that there were summons from the Court when nobody informed him. The application also reflects that he had knowledge of the visit of process server. The respondent had not produced any travel ticket or any documents to show that he was out of station and came back on 4th december, 2002.