$~A9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 09.02.2012
+ CM(M) 616/2001 and CM No. 1051/2001
K.L.BHAGI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Bhaskar, Adv.
versus
AMRIT KAUR BAWEJA ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Vageesh Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. The order impugned before this court is the order dated 24.09.2001 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) which has reversed the findings of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 01.12.1999 wherein the application filed by the tenant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „the Code‟) seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree dated 03.10.1998 had been allowed; matter had been remanded back to the ARC who had been directed to deal with the case on its merits. CM(M) No.616/2001 Page 1 of 5
2. Record shows that the eviction petition has been filed by the landlord-K.L. Bhagi against tenant-Amrit Kaur Baweja on the ground of Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as DRCA). The premises in question are A6, C.C. Colony, Delhi; the premises comprise of a godown which had been let out to the tenant for a commercial purpose. The averments made in the eviction petition have been perused. It has disclosed two addresses of the tenant i.e. (i) A6 Ground Floor, C.C. Colony, Delhi and (ii) H2/10, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. Summons were sent at the aforenoted addresses; on 10.03.1998, the ARC had noted that the reports sent by the postal authorities state that the tenant is residing at Ramesh Nagar; accordingly summons were ordered to be served to the tenant at his Ramesh Nagar‟s address i.e. 77B, Single Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi; this was reiterated on 22.04.1998. Summons were returnable for 26.05.1998. On 26.05.1998, the ARC had noted that on the perusal of the reports, the respondent cannot be served by ordinary process and as such summons were ordered to be served through publication to be effected in "Veer Arjun".
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of the court to the report of the summons which were sent to the tenant at the CM(M) No.616/2001 Page 2 of 5 address of Ramesh Nagar; these summons (page 170 of the paper book) show that the summons had been sent to the tenant on repeated dates i.e. 27.05.1998, 28.05.1998, 29.05.1998, 30.05.1998, 01.06.1998 and 02.06.1998; contention being that since last service report of 02.06.1998 has also been evidenced on this document, it is clear that this report had not been perused by the ARC on 26.05.1998 to note that the summons cannot be served by ordinary process on the Ramesh Nagar address as the last endorsement on these summons is dated 02.06.1998. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is substantiated from the record.
4. Contention of the respondent is that it was only up to 30.04.1998 that the tenant was residing at the address of Ramesh Nagar; thereafter he had shifted to Vikas Puri. This contention had also been noted by the two courts below. Record further shows that Ex.PW1/3 which is a notice dated 04.01.1997 had been sent by the landlord to the tenant both at C.C. Colony address also at her residential address i.e. 77B, Single Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi; it is not in dispute that pursuant to this notice a reply has been sent by the tenant. The AD Card Ex. PW1/7 which was addressed at the address of 77B, Single Storey, Ramesh CM(M) No.616/2001 Page 3 of 5 Nagar, New Delhi shows that service has been effected on the tenant whereas the AD Card Ex. PW1/8 which is the AD Card sent at the second address i.e. of CC Colony shows that no such person was residing there. It is thus clear that Ex. P1/7 had evidenced this fact and the landlord was thus well aware of the fact that the tenant has been served at the address of Ramesh Nagar i.e. 77B, Single Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi; yet for reasons best known to him he did not array it as an address of the tenant in the eviction petition. In these circumstances RCT had rightly noted that the ARC was not justified in ordering service through publication in the "Veer Arjun" as the perusal of the report of the summons received by the ARC on 26.05.1998 was not qua the summons sent at Ramesh Nagar address which as noted supra contained an endorsement of 02.06.1998 and obviously could not form the basis of a summon report which was prior in time i.e. 26.05.1998. All these facts were noted in the correct perspective by the ARCT; it has noted that the summons were repeatedly being sent at the Vikas Puri address when the landlord was fully aware of the fact that the tenant was residing at 77B, Single Storey, Ramesh Nagar which address was deliberately not furnished in the eviction petition. Tenant had left CM(M) No.616/2001 Page 4 of 5 this address in April, 1998.
5. Contention of the petitioner that on page 92 (paper book) the tenant has himself adverted to the address of Vikas Puri is an argument without force as all these documents (on page 92) are after the date of 30.04.1998, all relating to May and June 1998; admittedly, the tenant had shifted from this address on 30.04.1998; these documents did not in any manner advance the submission of the petitioner.
6. In view thereof it is clear that there was no valid service upon the tenant, the ex parte decree dated 03.10.1998 was rightly set aside. Impugned order directing the parties to appear before the ARC in these circumstances in no manner suffers from any infirmity.
7. Petition is without any merit; it is dismissed.
8. Parties are directed to appear before the ARC on 22.02.2012 who shall proceed to deal with the case on its merits.
9. Trial Court Record be returned.
INDERMEET KAUR, J FEBRUARY 09, 2012 rb CM(M) No.616/2001 Page 5 of 5