Delhi HC Upholds Yusuf Sarai Tenant’s Eviction: Ordinary Summons Triggered 15-Day Deadline Despite No Registered-Post Service

In brief

The question

Whether service of summons through the ordinary process alone was sufficient to commence the 15-day period for applying for leave to defend, despite the alleged absence of service by registered post.

The court held

The Court held that service through the ordinary process was sufficient to start the 15-day period, and that the Controller’s rejection of the incomplete-copy allegation disclosed no revisable error.

It also directed

The revision petition was dismissed, and the eviction order was left undisturbed; pending applications were disposed of.

01Facts

The landlords filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act), seeking possession for a bona fide requirement connected with their paying-guest accommodation.

¶ 3–4

The tenant was served by ordinary process on 8 December 2021 but did not apply for leave to defend within 15 days. He later alleged that the copy of the eviction petition served on him was incomplete and that summons had not also been served by registered post, acknowledgement due.

¶ 4–7, 12–15

The Additional Rent Controller rejected his application seeking a complete copy and passed an eviction order under Section 25-B(4). The tenant challenged that order in revision.

¶ 8–10

02Issues

i.Whether service of summons through the ordinary process alone was sufficient to commence the 15-day period for applying for leave to defend, despite the alleged absence of service by registered post.

¶ 35–38, 63

ii.Whether the tenant’s claim that the copy of the eviction petition served on him was incomplete warranted revisional interference with the Controller’s finding that he had been duly served.

¶ 38–39, 72

03Law Applied

Section 25-B(3)(a) of the DRC Act requires the Rent Controller to direct, simultaneously with ordinary service, service by registered post, acknowledgement due; however, under the Delhi High Court Division Bench decision in Ashok Kumar v. Purshotam Lal Verma, service completed through either prescribed mode is sufficient, and the 15-day period under Section 25-B(4) runs from the first valid service, regardless of the outcome of the other mode.

¶ 48–49, 54, 61–62

Section 25-B(4) provides that, absent a timely application for leave to defend, the landlord’s statements are deemed admitted, subject to the statutory procedure.

¶ 48

Under the proviso to Section 25-B(8), the High Court’s jurisdiction is supervisory and revisional, not appellate; it does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless the Controller’s decision discloses a material illegality, perversity, or error apparent on the record.

¶ 29–33

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

delhi rent control act, 1958 Section 14 Section 3

04Reasoning

The Court held that the ordinary-process service on 8 December 2021 was undisputed and was one of the modes recognised by Section 25-B. Applying Ashok Kumar, the Court concluded that any failure to complete the other mode did not defer the commencement of the statutory period; the 15 days expired on 23 December 2021.

¶ 67, 70

As to the allegedly incomplete copy, the Controller had relied on the process server’s report that a copy was supplied, the tenant’s unsigned and unaffirmed application, and his delay in raising the issue. That finding was plausible and disclosed no basis for revisional interference.

¶ 73–75

The Court also noted that the challenge to the modes of service had not been raised before the Controller and was not pleaded in the revision petition.

¶ 76–79