Affixation alone does not constitute valid service under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

The petitioner-tenant challenged, under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”), the orders dated 12 February 2025 and 13 August 2025 passed by the learned ARC in eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

The petitioner contended that summons had not been served in the manner prescribed by Section 25B and that his application for leave to defend had consequently been wrongly rejected as time-barred.

Postal service remained unsuccessful. The ARC treated service as complete primarily on the basis of affixation at the tenanted premises and also relied on alleged tender of summons to a person named “Moolchand,” stated to be the petitioner’s employee.

An earlier order dated 6 November 2024 had, however, found the service report unsatisfactory because it did not disclose the name or particulars of the alleged employee.

The respondents also relied on service by publication, which the petitioner disputed because the publication mentioned “Nanak Pura” instead of “Manak Pura”.

Section 25B(2)–(4) of the DRC Act prescribes a special procedure for eviction proceedings based on bona fide requirement: summons must be issued in the form specified in the Third Schedule and served in the ordinary manner or by registered post; publication may also be directed where circumstances so require.

Under Section 25B(3)(b), service by registered post may be treated as valid upon receipt of an acknowledgement signed by the tenant or agent, or where the registered article is returned with an endorsement of refusal by the postal employee.

Relying on Dharampal & Anr. v. Meena Sharma, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1215, the Court held that affixation is not a mode of service contemplated by Section 25B, which constitutes a complete procedural code for such proceedings.

The Court also considered Shyam Sunder Wadhawan v. Vivek Arya, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4627, but held that its principle concerning affixation following refusal could not apply where the alleged refusal and service through the intermediary were themselves not established.

The Court held that the ARC had proceeded on the erroneous premise that affixation at the tenanted premises on 21 January 2025 constituted complete service.

Applying Dharampal, it found that affixation, by itself, was not a statutorily recognised mode under Section 25B and therefore could not trigger the petitioner’s fifteen-day period for filing leave to defend.

The finding regarding “Moolchand” was also unsustainable because the ARC had previously found the service report deficient for failing to disclose his name or particulars; the later conclusion that he was the petitioner’s employee was contrary to the record.

The Court further observed that the alleged refusal necessary to invoke the reasoning in Shyam Sunder Wadhawan had not been proved.

Since the ARC had rejected the objection to publication mainly on the basis that affixation was valid service, it had not independently examined whether publication containing the disputed address—“Nanak Pura” instead of “Manak Pura”—constituted valid service. That question therefore required reconsideration by the ARC.

The matter was remanded to the learned ARC to independently determine whether the petitioner had been validly served, including through publication, without being influenced by the earlier findings concerning affixation.

The ARC was directed to conclude the exercise within four months, with the matter listed before it on 21 September 2026.

The rent revision petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.