OM PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 29 8.78, Vijay Kumar Gupta, respondent herein, filed an eviction petition against 0m Parkash Sharma, petitioner herein, seeking eviction from the suit premises No. 8539, Ward No. 4, Arakashan Road, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi on the ground of bonafida requirement under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Summons in the form specified in Schedule III were served on the petitioner on 29.9,78 in the ordinary way. He however, did not file an application seeking leave to defend within 15 days, as prescribed under Section 25-B (4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. An application was filed on 25th October, 78 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. That application for condonation of delay was, however, dismissed by the Addl. Rent Controller and an eviction order was passed against the petitioner/tenant under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. On revision before the High Court the case was reminded back with the direction that the application for condonation should be reconsidered The Addl. Rent Controller after recording the evidence of the parties on the point of limitation, again dismissed the application for condonation of delay by his order dated 2 5.7.88 and an eviction order was again passed. The revision petition filed before the High Court against the order of dismissal was dismissed on 13.2.89. During the execution proceedings, the petition tenant, however, filed an application under Section 37 of the Delhi Rent Control Act read with Section 25-B pleading therein that the summons of the eviction petition issued in the form specified under Schedule III were not duly served by registered post and, therefore, unless and until the service of summons was effected, the limitation period of fifteen days for filing the application seeking leave to defend could not have started. That plea of the tenant was rejected by Addl. Rent Controller vide order dated 20.3.91.

(2.) Aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed. There is no dispute about the legal proposition that if law provides two different modes of service and if service is effected by both the modes on different dates, the limitation for application for leave would run from the latter date of service. It cannot be said that unless and until the tenant is served by both the modes the limitation would not start running.

(3.) Section 25-B (2) directs the Controller to issue summons In the form specified in Third Schedule. Sub-Section (3) says that in addition to and simultaneously with the issue of summons for service on the tenant, the Controller shall also direct the summons to be served by registered post, acknowledgement due. Thus, it is the duty of the Controller to issue summons both ways, i.e. in the ordinary way as well as by registered post. In this case the Addl. Rent Controller has complied with this procedure of law in ordering the issue of summons in the form specified in Third Schedule in the ordinary way, as well as by registered post. This provision of law cannot be read to mean that the tenant must be served by both the modes before he can be said to have been served in accordance with law. If the summons sent in the ordinary way are served, it is sufficient service in the eyes of law. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner was served with the summons sent by ordinary process on 29.9.78. It is not his case that he was served by registered post at a later date. So, the limitation started running from that date. He was bound to file an application seeking leave to defend within fifteen days from 29.9.78. The fact that he was not served by registered post, does not mean that the limitation for filing the application seeking leave to defend did not start running. Both the Courts below have correctly appreciated the facts and law and I do not find any, illegality or nitirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below and there is no jurisdictional error. I, therefore, dismiss this revision petition at the admission stage itself. Revision dismissed.