Delhi High Court
Sh. Ajay Saxena vs Smt. Geeta Devi on 11 December, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 1083/2014
% 11th December, 2014
SH. AJAY SAXENA ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
SMT. GEETA DEVI ..... Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns
the order dated 2.9.2014 of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) by which
the Additional Rent Controller in Eviction Petition No.E-105/2014 has
ordered that when summons for service in a Section 14(1)(e) petition under
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are to
be published in the newspaper, then even the entire eviction petition along
with all the annexures of the eviction petition must be published in the
newspaper.
2. In my opinion the impugned order is clearly illegal because
publication in a newspaper for service of a respondent in an eviction petition
CMM 1083/2014 Page 1 of 3
is complete even if only the summons are published and there is no requirement
of law of publishing in the newspaper the entire eviction petition along with the
annexures, and which if is required to be done, then, all that be said is that
possibly a whole newspaper space will be occupied only by the eviction
petition, the annexures and the summons of the eviction petition.
3. It is not required in law that when respondent to an eviction case
cannot be served by ordinary means, then, besides publication of summons,
even the eviction petition and the annexures have to be published in the
newspaper, and, courts must understand that by passing such an order a huge
amount of expenditure, which will possibly run into at least a lakh of rupees or
even lacs of rupees in some cases, will be unnecessarily caused to the
petitioner.
4. I may in this regard refer to Section 25B(3)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 which specifically uses the language that there has to be "publication
of the summons in a newspaper" i.e. service is duly complete even if only
summons are published and there is no requirement of publishing the entire
eviction petition and the annexures thereto in the newspaper.
5. The Additional Rent Controller, as a matter of abundant caution, in
addition to publication direct that service be additionally be effected by
affixation on the last known address of the tenant/respondent. I would also
CMM 1083/2014 Page 2 of 3
like to bring to the ARC that in terms of the relevant provision contained in
Order V Rule 9 sub-Rule 5 proviso of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC), once summons are sent by properly addressed prepaid registered post
acknowledgment due, the service, depending on facts of each case, may if
called for be taken as complete if the registered post is not received by the
Court within 30 days from the date of issue of the summons. Of prior to
adapting this presumption of service other sufficient efforts must be made
for effecting service personally on the respondent(s) in the eviction petition.
6. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed and impugned order
dated 2.9.2014 is set aside and the ARC is now directed to issue publication
only of the summons in the newspaper, and additionally to order service by
affixation at the last known address of the respondent/tenant and issue
notices by registered post AD and thereafter if so required give benefit to the
petitioner of Order V Rule 9 sub-Rule 5 proviso CPC.
7. The petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the above
observations.
DECEMBER 11, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
vld
