Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3244 (DEL)

Ajay Saxena v. Geeta Devi

2014-12-11

VALMIKI J.MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT : 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 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. 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 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 respondents 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.