Whether provisions of CPC on service of summon applies to Delhi Rent Control Act?
Shubham
Budhiraja[1]
A filed an Eviction
Petition against B under Delhi Rent Control Act. The summons received unserved however
A’s application for substituted service was allowed and B was served through
publication. B appeared and filed application under Section 151 CPC for
complete paper-book however in the meantime he received the certified copies
and filed the leave to defend. The Ld. ARC dismissed the leave to defend as
filed beyond 15 days. Hence, the revision petition. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court
held as under:[2]
1.
Section 25B of the DRC Act, introduced by
the Amendment Act was enacted with an objective to lay down a special procedure
for speedy disposal of an Eviction Petition filed on the ground of bona fide
requirement, so as to ensure that a landlord with an honest and genuine need is
not subjected to protracted litigation. In view the aforesaid objective,
Section 25B of the DRC Act, is in the nature of a summary procedure and
constitutes a Code in itself, requiring strict adherence to the mandatory
stipulated time lines that needs to be followed at each stage.
2.
Notably, though Section 25B (4) of the DRC
Act prescribes the consequences of default, the time line specified is only in
the Third Schedule of the DRC Act, as there is nothing relating to the same in
Section 25B of the DRC Act. As such, the Third Schedule of the DRC Act is to be
read conjointly and harmoniously with the provisions of both Section 14(1)(e)
and Section 25B. Thus, it is manifestly clear that the tenant is not only
required to enter appearance within fifteen days of service of summons but is
also obliged, within the same period, to file an application/ affidavit seeking
leave to defend. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of
the Hon’ble Division Bench in Gurditta Mal vs. Bal Sarup, ILR (1980) 1 Del 40.
3.
Therefore, this Court, for the umpteen
reasons, cannot grant any benefit to the tenant for the repeated lapse(s) on
his part as he was caught sleeping on his own rights. Considering the facts and
circumstances involved, it does not lie in the mouth of the tenant to contend
that the publication was not accompanied with a complete copy of the paper
book.
Comments
Post a Comment