Sanjay Kumar Sachdeva vs Pooran Chand & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 31.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010593132025
+ RC.REV. 246/2025 & CM APPL. 51594/2025 (Stay)
SANJAY KUMAR SACHDEVA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Ms.
Nandini Singh, Mr. Amandeep
Singh & Mr. Karan Dorbi,
Advs.
versus
POORAN CHAND & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Gaurav Kumar Singh &
Mr. Nagender Yadav, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
% JUDGEMENT (Oral)
1. In view of Notification No. 85/G-4/Genl.-I/DHC dated
21.08.2026, whereby matters listed on 27.08.2026 were directed to be
taken up on 31.08.2026, the present matter is taken up today.
2. The present Rent Revision Petition has been filed under Section
25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as
the “DRC Act” ], read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, assailing the Order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the
learned ARC-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Eviction
Petition bearing RC ARC No. 460/2024 titled “Pooran Chand & Anr.
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 246/2025 Page 1 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
13:37:56
v. Sanjay Kumar Sachdeva” , as well as the Order dated 13.08.2025
passed by the learned ARC-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in
the Review Petition being MISC. SCJ No. 272/2025 [hereinafter
collectively referred to as the “Impugned Orders” ]. The Petitioner,
by way of the present Petition, seeks the following reliefs:
“In view of the above said facts and circumstances, it is most
respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to:
a. Set aside the Impugned Orders dated 12.02.2025 passed by the
Ld. ARC-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in eviction petition
bearing RC ARC No. 460/2024 and order dated 13.08.2025 passed
by the Ld. ARC-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in review
petition filed by the Petitioner vide Misc. SCJ 272/2025;
b. Pass/ grant any such other or further order/ relief(s) which this
Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice.”
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner confines
his challenge to the question of service of summons upon the
Petitioner. It is contended that the Petitioner was not served through
the modes and means specifically prescribed under Section 25B of the
DRC Act and, consequently, the learned ARC erred in refusing to take
on record the application seeking leave to defend on the ground that
the same had been filed beyond the statutory period of fifteen (15)
days and proceeded to pass orders against the Petitioner herein.
4. Learned counsel submits that the learned ARC has proceeded
on the erroneous premise that service by way of affixation constituted
valid service upon the Petitioner. In support thereof, reliance is placed
upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dharampal
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 246/2025 Page 2 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
13:37:56
1
& Anr. v. Meena Sharma wherein it has been held that affixation is
not a mode of service contemplated under Section 25B of the DRC
Act.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the findings returned by
the learned ARC with respect to one Mr. “Moolchand” are also
contrary to the record. It is pointed out that by an earlier Order dated
06.11.2024, the learned ARC had itself found the Service Report to be
unsatisfactory, observing as follows:
“ Since the name of the said employee is not mentioned nor any
particulars of the said person been disclosed on the report,
therefore, the said report is unsatisfactory.”
6. It is, therefore, submitted that having once found that the
particulars of the alleged employee were not disclosed and the Service
Report was unsatisfactory, the learned ARC could not subsequently
proceed to conclude, in the Review proceedings, that Mr.
“Moolchand” was an employee of the Petitioner and that service had
been effected through him.
7. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondents submits that the learned ARC has correctly appreciated
the material on record. It is submitted that although the notices issued
through the postal department remained unserved, service upon the
Petitioner was effected through other modes, including affixation and
publication.
8. Learned counsel for the Respondents further submits that, apart
from service by affixation, summons were also caused to be served by
way of publication and, therefore, the Petitioner cannot contend that
1
2012 SCC OnLine Del 1215
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 246/2025 Page 3 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
13:37:56
he was not duly served.
9. Learned counsel further submits that summons had also been
tendered to Mr. “Moolchand” , who was an employee of the
Petitioner, and the Petitioner had not specifically disputed the said
relationship. It is thus contended that the Petitioner was fully aware of
the eviction proceedings and cannot now be permitted to challenge the
service of summons.
10. In response, learned counsel for the Petitioner disputes the
validity of the alleged service by publication and submits that the
publication itself carried an incorrect description of the address. It is
contended that while the locality mentioned in the publication was
“Nanak Pura” , the tenanted premises is situated at “Manak Pura” . It
is, therefore, submitted that the said publication could not constitute
valid service upon the Petitioner.
ANALYSIS:
11. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material placed on record.
12. The controversy arising for consideration is essentially whether
the learned ARC was justified in treating the Petitioner as duly served
and consequently proceeding against him, particularly when the
service through post and registered post admittedly remained
unsuccessful and the conclusion regarding service was substantially
founded upon affixation.
13. Before considering the facts of the present case, it would be
apposite to notice the statutory scheme governing service of summons
in proceedings under Section 25B of the DRC Act.
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 246/2025 Page 4 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
13:37:56
14. In Dharampal & Anr . (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court
considered the scope and manner of service contemplated under
Section 25B of the DRC Act and observed as follows:
“ 5. Section 25-B(2)(3)(4) of the DRCA are reproduced herein a
under:
“25-B. Special procedure for the disposal of applications for
eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement.- (1) Every
application by a landlord for the recovery of possession of any
premises on the ground specified in clause ( e ) of the proviso to
sub-section (1) of Section 14, or under Section 14-A, or under
Section 14-B or under Section 14-C or under Section 14-D shall
be dealt with in accordance with the procedure specified in this
section.
(2) The Controller shall issue summons, in relation to every
application referred to in sub-section (1), in the form specified
in the Third Schedule.
(3)( a ) The Controller shall, in addition to, an simultaneously
with, the issue of summons for service on the tenant, also direct
the summons to be served by registered post, acknowledgment
due, addressed to the tenant or his agent empowered to accept
the service at the place where the tenant or his agent actually
and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally
works for gain and may, if the circumstances of the case so
require, also direct the publication of the summons in a
newspaper circulating in the locality in which the tenant is last
known to have resided or carried on business or personally
worked for gain.
( b ) When an acknowledgement purporting to be signed by the
tenant or his agent is received by the Controller or the
registered article containing the summons is received back with
an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal
employee to the effect that the tenant or his agent had refused to
take delivery of the registered article, the Controller may
declare that there has been a valid service of summons.
(4) The tenant on whom the summons is duly served (whether
in the ordinary way or by registered post) in the form specified
in the Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction
from the premises unless he files an affidavit stating the
grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for
eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter
provided; and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the
summons or his obtaining such leave, the statement made by
the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to
be admitted by the tenant and the application shall be entitled to
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 246/2025 Page 5 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
13:37:56
an order for eviction on the ground aforesaid.”
6. A reading of the aforenoted provisions of law shows that the
mode of service prescribed is three fold. This section i.e. Section
25-B postulates that the summons can be sent either by ordinary
way as provided in sub-Section 2; it is also required that the
summons may be sent by registered post as provided in sub Clause
3(a) as also by publication in a newspaper. It is only when the
summons are sent by a registered post that the “acknowledgement”
should be signed by the tenant or by his agent. The word
“acknowledgement” as occurring in Section 25-B(3)(b) has
reference to the words “acknowledgement due” occurred in the
previous sub-clause i.e. sub-clause (3)(a). This “acknowledgement”
referred to in sub-Clause 3(b) is an acknowledgement which is sent
along with the registered post; the word “acknowledgement”
referred in sub-Clause 3(b) is not the acknowledgment of summons
issued under sub-Section 2. Sub-Section 4 of Section 25-B in fact
settles the matter beyond all doubt; use of the words “in the
ordinary way” clearly implies the manner in which service is to be
effected.
7. It is thus clear that the service can be effected upon the tenant
either by ordinary way or by registered post; either of two modes
of service would be a complete service and whereupon the tenant
would then be required to file his application for leave to defend
within the stipulated period of 15 days.
8. It is not in dispute that in the instant case service has not been
effected by either of the two modes as prescribed in IIIrd Schedule
of the DRCA; the summons could not be served either by the
ordinary process or by registered A.D.; affixation is admittedly not
a mode of service which is provided in Section 25-B which is a
complete Code in itself. In these circumstances, the ARC holding
that the service by affixation was a valid service has clearly
committed an illegality; this is liable to be cured. Affixation is
admittedly not a mode of service as described by Section 25-B
which deals with the special class of landlords including those
class of landlords who have filed an eviction petition under Section
14(1)( e ) of the DRCA. The tenant not having been served as per
Schedule III of the DRCA, the impugned judgment holding
otherwise is accordingly set aside.”
15. Thus, the legal position is no longer res integra . The procedure
prescribed under Section 25B of the DRC Act is a special procedure
and the consequences flowing from a failure to file an Application
seeking leave to defend within the stipulated period of fifteen (15)
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 246/2025 Page 6 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
13:37:56
days are significant. The question whether a tenant has been duly
served must, therefore, necessarily be examined with reference to the
modes of service contemplated under the statutory scheme itself.
16. In the present case, the relevant portion of the Impugned Order
dated 13.08.2025, on the basis of which the learned ARC concluded
that service stood completed, reads as follows:
9) In the present case, perusal of report shows that the ahlmad had
duly mentioned the pages and the copy of the petition had also
been duly annexed with the copy of the summ ons and the process
server had affixed the same at the address mentioned on the
summons i.e. 10356, ground floor, gali pathshala wali, Manank
Pura, Karol Bach, New Delhi-I I 0005 on 21 . 01 . 2025. It is not in
dispute that the said address is the address of the tenanted premises
and also that the same is complete. Thus, the report on the basis
of which service was deemed to be complete and impugned
eviction order passed, pertained to tenanted premises and
complete address had been mentioned on the summons and
therefore, contention raised in this regard are devoid of merits.
Further, perusal of record shows that the process server went to the
correct address of the tenanted premises and only when despite
attempts on 18 .0 1.2025 , 20.01.2025 and 21.01.2025, respondent
was not found at the premises , therefore , affixation was carried out
on 21.01.2025 .
10 ) As far as the contention is concerned that affixation was carried
out on 20.01.2025, it is pertinent to note that the counsel for the
applicant has confused the affixation carried out outside the court
room, in pursuance of process issued through publication with the
affixation at the tenanted premises. Perusal of record shows that
while allowing the application under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC of the
landlord on 04.12.2024, simultaneously with the process through
nazarat branch on PF and through postal department on RC,
publication in the newspaper had also been direct ed. Therefore, in
pursuance of publication in the newspaper, affixation was also
carried out outside the court room on 20.01.2025. The said
publication does not have concern with the affixation carried out at
th e tenanted premises on 21.01.2025 which was a separate
proceedings carried out by the process server . Notice issued to the
postal department had remained unserved but the respondent had
been served through affixation at the tenanted premises. Therefore,
even if the contention of the applicant is considered that the wrong
address/i nco mplete address was mentioned in the newspaper in
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 246/2025 Page 7 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
13:37:56
publication , the same is of no assistance to the applicant/tenant
since he had been duly served by the nazarat branch on
21.01.2025.
17. A plain reading of the above makes it evident that the learned
ARC proceeded on the premise that affixation at the tenanted premises
on 21.01.2025 constituted valid and complete service upon the
Petitioner.
18. In view of the law laid down in Dharampal & Anr. (supra),
such a conclusion cannot be sustained. Affixation, by itself, is not a
mode of service recognised under the special procedure prescribed by
Section 25B of the DRC Act. Consequently, the finding of the learned
ARC that service upon the Petitioner stood completed merely on the
basis of affixation is contrary to the statutory scheme and the binding
legal position noticed hereinabove.
19. This Court also finds merit in the submission of the Petitioner
with respect to the alleged service through Mr. “Moolchand” . The
learned ARC, vide Order dated 06.11.2024, had itself found the
Service Report to be unsatisfactory, observing that neither the name
nor the particulars of the person alleged to be an employee had been
disclosed in the report. The subsequent finding in the Review
proceedings that Mr. “Moolchand” was an employee of the Petitioner,
therefore, is contrary to the record.
20. In arriving at the said conclusion, the learned ARC has placed
reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Shyam Sunder
2
Wadhawan v. Vivek Arya to hold that service by affixation following
refusal constitutes valid service. However, the reliance on the said
2
2014 SCC OnLine Del 4627
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 246/2025 Page 8 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
13:37:56
judgment is misplaced, as the factual foundation for treating the
alleged service upon Mr. “Moolchand” as a refusal by the Petitioner
was itself not established. Accordingly, the finding of the learned
ARC that service had been validly effected through Mr. “Moolchand”
cannot be sustained.
21. The Respondents, however, contend that even assuming service
had not been completed through post or by affixation, the Petitioner
stood duly served by way of publication, which is disputed by the
Petitioner on the ground that the publication reflected an incorrect
address, referring to “Nanak Pura” instead of “Manak Pura” .
22. The learned ARC, while dealing with the aforesaid aspect, has
observed as follows:
“12) Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that in the entire
application, it has not been denied by the applicant that the Mool
Chand was his employee and that he had not refused the receiving
of summons on 04.10.2024. The only contention pressed in this
regard is that the process server could not have reached the
tenanted premises since the description "Manak Pura, Karol Bagh"
had not been mentioned in the address on the summons. However,
it is not the contention of the applicant that there is another gali
pathshala wali in Delhi-05 having shop 10356 on the ground floor.
Even otherwise, in order to avoid controversy, the said service was
not treated as complete and fresh summons had been directed vide
order dated 04.12.2024. It was only in pursuance of the said
summons, when the respondent avoided service as the tenanted
premises was locked on 18.01.2025, 20.01.2025 and 21.01.2025
that the affixation was carried out. In Shyam Sunder Wadhawan
Vs. Vivek Arya RC REV No. 294/17 & CM No. 14886/14 dated
09.09.2014, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that
service done by affixation following refusal is valid service.
Therefore, the contention of the applicant that service by way of
affixation cannot be treated as service under the Third Schedule of
DRC Act is devoid of merits.”
23. This Court notes that the objection raised by the Petitioner with
respect to the discrepancy in the address appearing in the publication
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 246/2025 Page 9 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
13:37:56
was not independently considered by the learned ARC. The said
aspect was brushed aside primarily on the premise that the Petitioner
had, in any event, been duly served through affixation.
24. However, once this Court has found that the conclusion
regarding valid service through affixation cannot be sustained, the
question whether service stood independently and validly effected
through publication assumes significance. The objection of the
Petitioner regarding the discrepancy in the address appearing in the
publication, therefore, requires an independent consideration.
25. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered
view that the matter warrants remand to the learned ARC for
considering whether, the Petitioner stood validly served.
CONCLUSION:
26. Accordingly, the finding in the Impugned Orders treating the
Petitioner as duly served on the basis of affixation cannot be sustained
and is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned
ARC for consideration of the issue regarding the validity of service in
accordance with law.
27. The learned ARC shall consider the aforesaid issue
independently and without being influenced by any observations in
the Impugned Orders regarding the validity of service through
affixation.
28. Let the aforesaid consideration be concluded within a period of
four (04) months from today.
29. List before the learned ARC on 21.09.2026.
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 246/2025 Page 10 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
13:37:56
30. The present Petition, along with pending Application(s), if any,
is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
AUGUST 31, 2026/ v/ma
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 246/2025 Page 11 of 11
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
13:37:56