Kanta Thapar vs Brij Nandan
2011 Latest Caselaw 4781 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                          R.C REV. NO. 136/2011

+                            Date of Decision: 26th September, 2011


#      KANTA THAPAR                                        ...Petitioner
!                                  Through: Mr. Rajiv K. Garg, Advocate

                                Versus

$     BRIJ NANDAN                                       ....Respondent
                                 Through: Ms Geetanjali Mohan &
                                          Mr. Ketan Madan, Advocates

       CORAM:
*      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN

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

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/pg