Petition challenging an eviction order under the Delhi Rent Control Act, alleging improper service of summons. The Court upheld the eviction order, finding that substituted service via publication and affixation was valid as the tenant was avoiding service.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~
% Judgment reserved on: 02.05.2024 Judgment pronounced on: 07.05.2024
SHRAWAN SULTANIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Roshan Santhalia, Adv. versus
AVNEET GOYAL ..... Respondent Through: Mr Jai Sahai Endlaw, Mr Gaurav Aggarwal, Ms Sagarika Kaul, Ms Mahima Mishra and Rishabh Chaudhary, Advocates.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T
RC.REV. 454/2016
Page 1 of 8 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2024.05.07 10:34:53 +05'30'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date :0 7.05.2024 16:13:16
2.1 The present respondent claiming himself to be co-owner of premises No. 2619/1, Zera Fazil, Lahori Gate, Naya Bazar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the subject premises”) filed an eviction petition against the present petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, pleading therein that the subject premises was purchased by him and two more persons by way of registered sale deed dated 26.05.2010 and at that time, the present petitioner was already occupying the subject premises as a tenant for commercial purposes; that his family consists of his wife, one married son and one married daughter; that his son, who has been assisting him in food grain business for past 4-5 years now wants to start an independent shop/showroom of pulses and for that purpose, he is in bona fide requirement of the subject premises since they do not have available with them any reasonably suitable alternate accommodation.
2.2 Since despite service of summons in the prescribed format, the present petitioner opted not to file any application for leave to contest, the learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition by way of the impugned order dated 23.11.2015. Thereafter on 28.05.2016 after expiry of statutory protection period, the present respondent instituted execution proceedings which culminated into restoration of possession to the present respondent on 11.07.2016. The present petitioner filed before the learned Rent Controller an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 16.08.2016 and the same was dismissed on 17.08.2016.
RC.REV. 454/2016
Page 2 of 8 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2024.05.07 10:34:28 +05'30'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date :0 7.05.2024 16:13:16
3.1 Learned counsel for petitioner/tenant argued that there was no proper service of summons in the prescribed format, so the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was argued on behalf of petitioner/tenant that the report of the postman on the envelope containing the summons was procured by the respondent in collusion, so the same cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel for petitioner/tenant took me through documents on record pertaining to the proceedings in civil suit between the parties, which was pending during the relevant period and contended that nothing prevented
RC.REV. 454/2016
Page 3 of 8 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2024.05.07 10:34:13 +05'30'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date :0 7.05.2024 16:13:16
the respondent/landlord from serving the summons before the civil court. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner/tenant referred to the order sheet dated 05.10.2015 of the learned ASCJ (Central) Delhi and submitted that prior to moving application dated 06.10.2015 under Order V Rule 20 CPC, the present respondent should have tried to serve summons on the present petitioner before the said civil court. It was further contended that on 02.06.2015, the petitioner was personally present before the civil court but even that day, no efforts were done to serve summons on him in court. Therefore, according to learned counsel for petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3.2 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/landlord supported the impugned order and contended that since service of summons in prescribed format was carried out through as many as four modes, there was no error in the view taken by the learned Rent Controller. As regards service of summons through civil court, learned counsel for respondent contended that the same is beyond the scope of specific procedure prescribed in Chapter IIIA of the Act for service of summons. Learned counsel for respondent also took me through record to point out the multiple efforts of the petitioner/tenant to avoid service of summons.
RC.REV. 454/2016
Page 4 of 8 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2024.05.07 10:33:57 +05'30'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date :0 7.05.2024 16:13:16
RC.REV. 454/2016
Page 5 of 8 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2024.05.07 10:33:41 +05'30'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date :0 7.05.2024 16:13:16
incorrect. Mere bald allegation that the said postal report was procured under collusion would not suffice. But nothing more has been shown by the petitioner/tenant in that regard.
RC.REV. 454/2016
Page 6 of 8 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2024.05.07 10:33:24 +05'30'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date :0 7.05.2024 16:13:16
Section 25B(3)(a) that the Rent Controller shall in addition to and simultaneously with the issue of summons for service on the tenant, also direct the summons to be served by registered post, acknowledgment due addressed to the tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service thereof at the place where the tenant or his agent actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and may, if the circumstances of the case so require also direct the publication of the summons in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the tenant is last known to have resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain. In other words, section 25B(3)(a) of the Act contemplates that service of the summons has to be on the tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service. Admittedly, on 05.10.2015 the present petitioner/tenant was not personally present before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge. Also admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that counsel for petitioner/tenant, who was present before the court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge on 05.10.2015 was authorized to accept service of summons on behalf of the petitioner. So, the summons could not have been served before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge on 05.10.2015. Ofcourse, earlier on 02.06.2015, the petitioner was personally present before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, but on that day there was no reason for the present respondent/landlord to anticipate that the petitioner/tenant would avoid service of summons issued on the petition filed hardly a week back on 27.05.2015.
RC.REV. 454/2016
Page 7 of 8 pages GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA Date: 2024.05.07 10:32:55 +05'30'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date :0 7.05.2024 16:13:16
GIRISH KATHPALIA
Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2024.05.07 10:32:29 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)
MAY 07, 2024/ as
RC.REV. 454/2016
Page 8 of 8 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:VAISHALI CHAUHAN Signing Date :0 7.05.2024 16:13:16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether summons in the prescribed format were duly served on the petitioner/tenant?
5 provisions across 2 enactments
SHRAWAN SULTANIA
AVNEET GOYAL
GIRISH KATHPALIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
