Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RC.REV.70/2016& C.M.No.4195/2016
ASHOK ANAND & ANR Petitioners
Through Mr.S.K.Sharma and Mr.Prayas Aneja,Advs.
RC.REV.70/2016& C.M.No.4195/2016
ASHOK ANAND & ANR Petitioners
Through Mr.S.K.Sharma and Mr.Prayas Aneja,Advs.
VERSUS
DROPADIDEVI@DROPATIDEVI Respondent
Through Respondentin person.
Through Respondentin person.
RC.REV.75/2016& C.M.No.4322/2016
ASHOK ANAND & ANR Petitioners
Through Mr.S.K.Sharmaand Mr.Prayas Aneja,Advs.
ASHOK ANAND & ANR Petitioners
Through Mr.S.K.Sharmaand Mr.Prayas Aneja,Advs.
VERSUS
DROPADIDEVI@DROPATIDEVI Respondent
Through Respondentin person
Through Respondentin person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICEINDERMEET KAUR
17.05.2016 Vide the impugned order,the eviction petition stood decreed in favour of the landlady under Section 14 (l)(e) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act(DRCA). This was on 31.01.2015. The Trial Court had noted that the eviction petition having been filed under Section 14
(l)(e)ofthe DRCA,the summary procedure as contained in Section
25-B would be applicable and since after the effective service had been made at the business house ofthe tenant(6/5256-57, Krishna
Nagar,KarolBagh,New Delhi)andthetenantinspiteofservice(not
RC.REV.70/20168cRC.REV.75/2016 page i of5 2016:DHC:9338
; 5 :• ■' i-'Tw: only through the registered post but also through the ordinary course as also by affixation andpublicationin 'Hindu') the tenant not having filed an application seeking leave to defend within the stipulated period, there was little option left with the Trial court but to decree the evictionpetition.
On this score, learned counsel for the petitioner states that if the application seeking leave to defend is not filed within the stipulated period, admittedly there was no option with the Trial Court but to decree the evictionpetition.
Record shows that summons had been issued in the prescribed format. Attention has been drawn to under Section 25-B of the
DRCA. Submission is that the Trial Court had noted that the summons had been effected at the tenanted shop of the tenant which was not his address as in the eviction petition itself, the landlady has disclosed that this property was without amenities i.e. there was no electricity and water and if there is no electricity and water, the premises couldnot be livable. He is otherwise a resident Narina Vihar and this was well within the knowledge of the landlady. This is the first submission ofthe learned counsel for thepetitioner.
His second submission is connected with his first submission; submissionbeingthat the landlady hasplayed fraudupon the tenant.
Admittedly after the date of decree, since there was no stay of proceedings, the Bailiff had gone to execute the decree and the premiseshadsincebeenpeacefullyhandedover to the landlady on
17.05.2016 Vide the impugned order,the eviction petition stood decreed in favour of the landlady under Section 14 (l)(e) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act(DRCA). This was on 31.01.2015. The Trial Court had noted that the eviction petition having been filed under Section 14
(l)(e)ofthe DRCA,the summary procedure as contained in Section
25-B would be applicable and since after the effective service had been made at the business house ofthe tenant(6/5256-57, Krishna
Nagar,KarolBagh,New Delhi)andthetenantinspiteofservice(not
RC.REV.70/20168cRC.REV.75/2016 page i of5 2016:DHC:9338
; 5 :• ■' i-'Tw: only through the registered post but also through the ordinary course as also by affixation andpublicationin 'Hindu') the tenant not having filed an application seeking leave to defend within the stipulated period, there was little option left with the Trial court but to decree the evictionpetition.
On this score, learned counsel for the petitioner states that if the application seeking leave to defend is not filed within the stipulated period, admittedly there was no option with the Trial Court but to decree the evictionpetition.
Record shows that summons had been issued in the prescribed format. Attention has been drawn to under Section 25-B of the
DRCA. Submission is that the Trial Court had noted that the summons had been effected at the tenanted shop of the tenant which was not his address as in the eviction petition itself, the landlady has disclosed that this property was without amenities i.e. there was no electricity and water and if there is no electricity and water, the premises couldnot be livable. He is otherwise a resident Narina Vihar and this was well within the knowledge of the landlady. This is the first submission ofthe learned counsel for thepetitioner.
His second submission is connected with his first submission; submissionbeingthat the landlady hasplayed fraudupon the tenant.
Admittedly after the date of decree, since there was no stay of proceedings, the Bailiff had gone to execute the decree and the premiseshadsincebeenpeacefullyhandedover to the landlady on
RC.REV. 70/2016&RC.REV.75/2016 page2of5
15.12.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner on this score submits that it was on 15.12.2015,only when the Bailiffhad gone to his house that he leamt about the eviction decree having been passed against him.
This Court notes the manner in which the service has been effected upon the tenant. The Trial Court has rightly noted the position on this count which is to the effect that the summons in the ordinary course as also through registered post (in the prescribed format as contained in Schedule III ofthe DRCA)were sent to the tenant and the same were received back with the report that the premises are lying locked. The address on which the summons were sent was6/5256-57,Krishna Nagar,KarolBagh,New Delhi.This was the tenanted premises.This is also the business house ofthe tenant.In the eviction petition itself, the landlady has clearly stated that this property had been leased out to the tenant for a commercial purpose i.e. for the purpose of a godown which has been rented out at a monthly rent ofRs.605/-. The submission ofthe learned counsel for the petitionerthatthis wasnotthe place where the tenantwasrunning his business house is thus wholly incorrect.The business house ofthe petitioner isthe place where the landlord/landlady isrequired to serve the summons.This is clear from the language ofsection 25(B)(3)of the said Act. Summons were duly served. At the cost ofrepetition, they were sent both through ordinary post and registered A.D.Post
(nothinghasbeen broughtonrecordtocontradictthissubmission).
15.12.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner on this score submits that it was on 15.12.2015,only when the Bailiffhad gone to his house that he leamt about the eviction decree having been passed against him.
This Court notes the manner in which the service has been effected upon the tenant. The Trial Court has rightly noted the position on this count which is to the effect that the summons in the ordinary course as also through registered post (in the prescribed format as contained in Schedule III ofthe DRCA)were sent to the tenant and the same were received back with the report that the premises are lying locked. The address on which the summons were sent was6/5256-57,Krishna Nagar,KarolBagh,New Delhi.This was the tenanted premises.This is also the business house ofthe tenant.In the eviction petition itself, the landlady has clearly stated that this property had been leased out to the tenant for a commercial purpose i.e. for the purpose of a godown which has been rented out at a monthly rent ofRs.605/-. The submission ofthe learned counsel for the petitionerthatthis wasnotthe place where the tenantwasrunning his business house is thus wholly incorrect.The business house ofthe petitioner isthe place where the landlord/landlady isrequired to serve the summons.This is clear from the language ofsection 25(B)(3)of the said Act. Summons were duly served. At the cost ofrepetition, they were sent both through ordinary post and registered A.D.Post
(nothinghasbeen broughtonrecordtocontradictthissubmission).
RC.REV.70/2016&RC.REV.75/2016 page3of5
They additional served through publication in 'Hindu' as also affixation. In the eviction petition, the petitioner has stated that amenity ofelectricity and water had not been furnished at the time of tenanting outthe premises but does notin any manner mean that there was no electricity and water. It only means that the electricity and water charges were not to be borne by the landlord. It is also not the case ofthe petitioner thatthere was no electricity and water for all the years when he is running his godown which is w.e.f.lastseveral years j (years notspecified)butthe factthatthe earlier rent was Rs.400/- per month which thereafter was increased to Rs.605/- reflects a long term tenancy. Submission of the petitioner that the landlady has played fraud upon the tenantis thus wholly incorrect.It wasincumbent upon the landladyto have served the summons as prescribed in Schedule III ofSection 25-B ofthe DRCA which atthe costofrepetition was duly done atthe address mentioned in the eviction petition.His submission that this was not his business house is negatived by the fact that he was running a godown there. Only because the landlady had not provided electricity and water did not mean that there was no electricity and water.This Courtalso notesthe purpose ofthetenancy was a godown which has been so stated in the eviction petition. This wasthe purpose for which the premises has been let out.
Service having been effected in the duly prescribed format and no application seeking leave to defend having been filed by the petitioner/tenantwithinthestipulated period,the Trial hasrightly
They additional served through publication in 'Hindu' as also affixation. In the eviction petition, the petitioner has stated that amenity ofelectricity and water had not been furnished at the time of tenanting outthe premises but does notin any manner mean that there was no electricity and water. It only means that the electricity and water charges were not to be borne by the landlord. It is also not the case ofthe petitioner thatthere was no electricity and water for all the years when he is running his godown which is w.e.f.lastseveral years j (years notspecified)butthe factthatthe earlier rent was Rs.400/- per month which thereafter was increased to Rs.605/- reflects a long term tenancy. Submission of the petitioner that the landlady has played fraud upon the tenantis thus wholly incorrect.It wasincumbent upon the landladyto have served the summons as prescribed in Schedule III ofSection 25-B ofthe DRCA which atthe costofrepetition was duly done atthe address mentioned in the eviction petition.His submission that this was not his business house is negatived by the fact that he was running a godown there. Only because the landlady had not provided electricity and water did not mean that there was no electricity and water.This Courtalso notesthe purpose ofthetenancy was a godown which has been so stated in the eviction petition. This wasthe purpose for which the premises has been let out.
Service having been effected in the duly prescribed format and no application seeking leave to defend having been filed by the petitioner/tenantwithinthestipulated period,the Trial hasrightly
RC.REV.70/2016&RC.REV.75/2016 page4of5 decreed the eviction petition. The peaceful possession of the premises is also with the landlady.
In view ofthe factual narration as noted supra, the impugned order calls for no interference. Petition js without any merit.
Dismissed.
T
J
MAY 17,2016 A INDERMEET KAUR,J
In view ofthe factual narration as noted supra, the impugned order calls for no interference. Petition js without any merit.
Dismissed.
T
J
MAY 17,2016 A INDERMEET KAUR,J
RC.REV.70/2016&RC.REV.75/2016 page 5 of5
JUDGMENT