MAHENDER KUMAR Vs. LATA CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Eviction petition was filed against the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short 'DRC Act') on 13.3.1995. The summons were issued. However, it seems that summons were refused to be accepted by the respondent but the Additional Rent Controller again ordered service by publication. The publication was effected in 'Jansatta' but the Additional Rent Controller was not satisfied as instead of publishing the summons under Schedule III, ordinary summons were published and again Additional Rent Controller ordered that the respondent be served through affixation at the given address. In view of the report of the process server, who went to the address of the respondent on 1.6.1995, 10.6.1995, 20.6.1995 and ultimately on 10.7.1995 when respondent refused to accept the summons, a copy of the summons was pasted at the given address and the process server also obtained signature of one Narain Pujari of the Shiv Mandir, the Additional Rent Controller passed the order of eviction on 12.7.1995 as no application to contest was filed by the respondent within a period of 15 days. However, Additional Rent Controller granted six months' time to the respondent to vacate the premises.

(2.) THE petitioner before me waited for the entire period of six months and filed an execution on 12.2.1996, although no notice of execution was required to be served as the same was filed within one year of the passing of the eviction order, yet, notice was given. Same story was repeated on 15.3.1996, when the process server visited the premises of the respondent, the premises was found locked and the copy of the summons was pasted on the door. A photograph of the same has strangely been filed by the respondent in Court. The possession of the premises was taken through the process of the Court by the petitioner on 25.4.1996. The executing court had fixed 2.5.1996 date for compliance report on which date the respondent filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC') for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed against her.

(3.) ON the other hand, counsel for the respondent has admitted that no application was filed for condonation of delay and nowhere it was mentioned in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC by the respondent that from which date the respondent came to know about the passing of the decree. The explanation given by the counsel for the respondent was that the respondent had gone out to Balaji and when she came back on 26.4.1996, she was told that possession of the premises in terms of the order passed in execution application had been obtained by the petitioner and thereafter she has filed the application on 2.5.1996 and this fact finds mention in the application for stay, which was filed by the respondent before the executing court on 2.5.1996. That application was filed by the respondent along with application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC.