SHRI RISHI PRAKASH Vs. SHRI RAGHBAR DYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant of premises No. 145 Katra Mashrooh, Delhi-6. The respondent is a landlord. The respondent filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner under Section 14(i)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 as provided subsequently. At this stage it will be convenient to set out the provision in so far as they are relevant all sections 25-B.

(2.) In the present case, perhaps due to some mistake in the office of the Controller, as summons was sent to the respondent in the ordinary form prescribed under Order 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In response to the above summons the tenant appeared through counsel and filed a written statement on 17.11.1977. On the next date of hearing namely 11.12.1977 the respondent moved an application requesting that an order for eviction be passed since the tenant had failed to seek leave to contest as required by Sub-section (4) of Section 25B. The tenant filed a reply and after hearing the arguments the learned Controller came to the conclusion that the prayer of the landlord deserved to be granted. He therefore passed an order of eviction without giving the tenant an opportunity to file an affidavit or leave to contest the application for eviction. The tenant has preferred this revision petition against the order of the rent controller dated 1.2.1978.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner Shri Arun Kumar points out that on the language of Section 25B the issue of a summons in the form specified in the third Schedule is mandatory. Again under Sub-section (1) the tenant has to file an affidavit and seek leave to defend only in cases where summons has been duly served on him in the form specified in the third Schedule. He therefore submits without serving a proper summons and giving him an opportunity to file an application for leave to contest an order of eviction should not have been passed against him.