N. Balakrishnan vs M.N.C. Datta
1987 Latest Caselaw 362 Del

JUDGMENT

N.N. Goswamy, J.

(1) This revision petition by the tenant is directed against the ex-parte eviction order dated 17-7-1986 passed by the Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi.

(2) The respondent-landlord had filed a petition for eviction under section 14(l)(e) read with section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Notice of the petition under the prescribed form was issued to the petitioner-tenant. The Process Server reported that he had gone to the premises on 26-5-1986 along with the landlord. Someone came out and he stated that the petitioner-tenant was inside and he would have the signatures of the petitioner on the said summons. The person took the summons in side and brought it out with the signatures which were witnessed by the landlord himself. From the report, it is clear that the Process Server had not seen the petitioner and was not in a position to identify the petitioner. On the basis of that report, the service was treated as complete. In the absence of anybody putting in appearance the Addl. Rent Controller passed the eviction order. As a consequence of the eviction order, the respondent took out execution and dispossessed the petitioner on 25-2-1987.

(3) According to the petitioner he was never served with the summons and he came to know about the eviction order only when the proceedings for dispossessing him were taken and he was actually dispossessed.

(4) I sent for the record of the case and looked into the summons as also the report of the Process Server. On the suggestion of the counsel for the parties, I had sent the summons allegedly signed by the petitioner along with his admitted signatures for comparison to the Central Forensic Laboratory. The said Laboratory asked for further admitted signatures of the petitioner which were also sent. On comparison of the signatures, the report of the Laboratory has been received and according to the report, the signatures on the summons do not tally with the admitted signatures of the petitioner. The various differences have been pointed out in the report and it is not necessary to go into details because I am fully satisfied that the report of the Laboratory is absolutely correct. Along with the revision, the petitioner has enclosed various orders passed in the previous proceedings between the parties. Those orders also disclose that the respondent had been trying by various unfair means to obtain possession of the premises but had failed in all his attempts. The present attempt seems to be a similar one and such thing has to be discouraged. Ordinarily, I would have issued a notice for initiating, criminal proceedings but there is no such material on record and I refrain from issuing such a notice.

(5) For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is allowed and the ex-parte eviction order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller is set aside. The petitioner has also filed an application for leave to defend before the Addl. Rent Controller which will be treated to be within time and will be decided on merits. In view of this order, the possession of the premises has necessarily to be restored to the petitioner-tenant. Shri V.P. Singh, the learned counsel, or the respondent, states that since the respondent has already shifted to the ground floor he would require two weeks' time to vacate the ground floor and hand over the same to the petitioner. The prayer of Mr. V.P. Singh is allowed and the respondent is granted two weeks' time from to-day to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner. The petitioner will go to the premises on 25-8-1987 at 10 a.m. when possession will positively be handed over to the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs in this petition. Counsel's fee Rs. 500.00 . The parties are directed to appear before the Addl, Rent Controller on 27-8-1987 for further proceedings.