Courts Shall Serve Summons At An Alternate Address If Tenant Is Absent From Tenanted Premises: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has observed that if a tenant is undeniably absent from the particular address of tenanted premises, either temporarily or permanently, the Court should make every sincere endeavour to serve summons upon the tenant at an alternate address.
The court added that lsummoning by way of publication should only be resorted under extreme circumstances.
The question in the present matter to be adjudicated upon was whether the summons were at all served or duly served upon the petitioner so as to culminate in the impugned eviction order.
A bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma while directing to restore the possession of the tenanted premises to the petitioner within seven days, thus observed, “It is but also the fundamental mandate of law that the summons of the petition must be shown to have been duly served upon the opposite party/tenant so as to enable him to file an application for leave to defend within the stipulated time. In a case, wherein the tenant is undeniably absent from the particular address of tenanted premises, temporarily or permanently, the Court should make every sincere endeavour to serve summons upon the tenant at an alternate address, and summoning by way of publication should only be resorted to when the circumstances are such that it leaves no scope for any other course of action”.
The bench while setting aside the impugned order remanded the matter back to the Trial Court. Further considering that since the petitioners now have the copies of the eviction petition and other annexures, they were called upon to file an application for leave to defend in terms of Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act assuming that the service of summons under section 25B(2) of the DRC Act is effected.
Advocate Sunil Dutt Dixit appeared for the petitioner and Advocate S. K. Chawla appeared for the respondent.
In the present Revision Petition under Section 25B (8)1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19582 read with Article 2273 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who was the tenant, against the impugned order passed in favour of the respondent i.e., the landlady, by learned the Rent Controller, Pilot Court (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Alleging a fraud, the petitioner had contended that they never served with the summons of the eviction petition in the manner prescribed under Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act and that the respondent deliberately did not provide the alternative address of the petitioners in the eviction petition despite being aware of the petitioners place of residence.
Accordingly, the bench held, “It is apparent that not only was the requisite legal procedure not followed to effect service of summons but the learned ARC failed to exercise due diligence in the matter. Firstly, learned ARC accepted the affixation report dated 26.08.2017 without examining the process server. There were made not three visits but only one by the process server contrary to order dated 18.07.2017 passed by learned ARC. The report was neither signed by any witness nor there were any photographs attached. There was effected no service of summons by 7 RPAD RC REV 292/2018 Page 6 of 7 RPAD. It is said ‘justice hurried, is justice buried’ and suffice to say that is what happened in the instant matter”.
“Secondly, and at the cost of repetition, since the tenanted premises was found to be shut or closed, it was the duty of the learned ARC to call upon the respondent to provide alternate address of the tenant on an affidavit. Such caution was thrown to the wind. It is evident that the respondent deliberately concealed the details of the residential address of the petitioners and no efforts were made to serve summons at such address”, the bench further held.
Cause Title: Amrit Lal Wadhera & Anr. v. Saroj Suneja [Neutral Citation: 23:DHC:9089]
Click here to read/download the Judgment