Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
R.C REV. NO. 136/2011
Date of Decision: 26th September, 2011 # KANTA THAPAR ...Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, Advocate
Through: Ms Geetanjali Mohan & Mr. Ketan Madan, Advocates
JUDGMENT
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? (No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No)
JUDGMENT
P.K BHASIN,J: This petition is against the order dated 8.3.2011 passed by learned Rent Controller (West) whereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord, in respect of premises 80-B, Ekta Enclave, Peeragarhi, Delhi-110041 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tenanted premises’) has been allowed and she has been ordered to vacate the tenanted premises because of her failure to seek leave to contest the 2011:DHC:4981 eviction petition within the prescribed period of fifteen days from the date of service of summons on her through her daughter-in-law on 4th February,
2011.
2. The respondent-landlord had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘the Act’ in short) on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises. On 13.01.2011 the Rent Controller ordered issuance of summons under Section 25 (3)(a) of the Act but the same was not served upon the petitioner-tenant but was delivered to her daughter-in-law on 4th February, 2011 and that was considered to be good service upon the petitioner and consequently eviction order came to be passed because of the failure of the petitioner to move application for leave to contest within fifteen days from 4th February, 2011.
3. The petitioner before coming to this Court had approached the trial Court for recalling the eviction order but that prayer was declined. Hence, the present petition was filed.
4. In the present case the summons of eviction petition were admittedly not served personally upon the petitioner-tenant. No summons were sent to the petitioner by registered post, as is mandatory under Section 25(3)(a) of the Act. In any event, service of summons on the daughter-in-law of the petitioner could not be considered to be a valid service. In this regard, useful reference can be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of “Subhash Anand Vs. Krishan Lal & Anr.”, 27 (1985) Delhi Law Times 269 wherein the service of summons upon the wife of the tenant was not accepted by this Court to be a valid service.
5. This revision petition, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order of eviction is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court where the case shall be taken up on 14th October, 2011 at 2 p.m. The learned trial Court shall dispose of the petitioner’s application for leave to contest application, which she had moved there before coming to this Court and which has been dismissed only on the ground that the Rent Controller has no powers to entertain the same, on merits after giving an opportunity to the respondent-landlord to file reply thereto, if not filed already. Thereafter the learned trial Court shall dispose of the leave application as expeditiously as possible. P.K. BHASIN, J September 26, 2011