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.



[1] Advocate, Delhi High Court [LLB, ACS, BCOM(H)], +91-9654055315

[2][2] Hans Raj v. Kishori Lal, RC.REV. 274/2025, Judgment dated 22/12/2025

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Can a Partner sue another partner for recovery of money when firm is unregistered?

PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT: WHY YOU SHOULD WORRY?

Test/ basis for seeking exemption from the mandate of pre-suit mediation in a commercial suit?