NARENDER KUMAR JAIN Vs. RAJ KUMAR KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 05.05.2007 passed by the learned ARC, whereby an eviction order was passed against the petitioners, who are two brothers occupying different floors of property bearing No. 1275, Ward No. 4, Gali Wakilpuram, Dariba Kalan, Delhi.

(2.) THE respondent filed the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) read with Section 25B of the said Act. The summons were sent to the petitioners under Schedule III. Petitioner No. 1 Narender Kumar Jain was personally served by ordinary process as well as by registered covers on 13.03.2007, whereas petitioner No. 2 Surender Kumar Jain was served on 10.01.2007. Both the petitioners failed to file their respective leave to defend applications within the prescribed statutory period of 15 days. On 03.05.2007 when the matter was fixed before the Additional Rent Controller, the petitioners appeared and moved an application under Section 151 CPC. It was contended in the applications that the summons served upon the two petitioners made a reference to Sub -section (5) of Section 25(3) of the DRC Act and that there is no such provision in the said Act. It was also submitted that one of the site plan annexed to the petition did not have the colour markings and, Therefore, it was not the true copy of the plan as filed in the Court. One of the plans was also stated to have not been supplied along with the copy of the petition. It was also submitted that the summons had not been served personally upon petitioner No. 2 Sh. Surender Kumar Jain and had been served on his wife Smt. Rajrani Jain. The same could not be considered as proper service. By the impugned order, the learned ARC had rejected the aforesaid submissions of the petitioner, and in my view rightly so.

(3.) HE also relies on Clause 5 in part D, which deals with service of process, in Chapter 1 "Practice for the Trial of civil suits" of the Delhi High Court Rules. The said clause requires that the form of summons for the final disposal of a suit should be printed in vernacular on coloured page, as this will tend to impress the distinction between the said form and that for settlement of issue both upon the mind of the people and upon the officers of the court. He submits that in the present case the summons were not in coloured form. In my view, the aforesaid guidelines firstly do not apply to proceedings under the Act, which is a Special Code and not a civil suit, and, in any event, they cannot he held to be imperative so as to render the summons issued to the petitioner defective and non -est. No doubt the guidelines issued by this Court ought to be taken seriously and adhered to by the Courts below. However, in the said clause, I cannot read a mandatory provision, the non -compliance whereof will render the summons void.