K.L.Bhagi vs Amrit Kaur Baweja
2012 Latest Caselaw 912 Del

$~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.

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

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

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

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