Facts
In an eviction proceeding under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”), summons were reportedly served on 16 July 2025 through Devender Kumar, whom the Rent Controller described as the petitioner’s employee, after Kumar spoke to the petitioner by telephone.
Source reference: p. 6–10, 18–19The respondent-landlord also produced postal receipts, tracking reports and an affidavit of service.
Source reference: p. 6–10, 18–19When the matter was taken up on 18 August 2025, the petitioner’s counsel stated that only six documents had been received and sought the complete set; an application challenging service was filed on 1 September 2025.
Source reference: p. 6–10, 18–19The Rent Controller rejected that application and passed an eviction order on 25 February 2026, finding service valid and noting that no application for leave to defend had been filed within the prescribed period.
Source reference: p. 6–10, 18–19The petitioner challenged that order in revision under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act, disputing service through Kumar, claiming incomplete delivery of documents, and questioning postal-tracking records said to show deliveries at two locations at the same time.
Source reference: p. 1–3, 6Issues
Whether the Rent Controller’s finding that summons had been validly served on the petitioner disclosed a jurisdictional error, material irregularity or perversity warranting interference under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act.
Source reference: p. 11–15, 17–18Whether the petitioner’s objections concerning service, including receipt by Devender Kumar, alleged non-supply of the complete petition and the postal-tracking discrepancy, justified reopening the opportunity to seek leave to defend.
Source reference: p. 2–3, 11–15Law Applied
Section 25B of the DRC Act prescribes a summary procedure for specified eviction proceedings, including the requirement that a tenant seek leave to defend within the statutory period.
Source reference: p. 3–5, paras 8–13Under the proviso to Section 25B(8), the High Court’s jurisdiction is supervisory and revisional, not appellate: it examines the legality and propriety of the decision-making process and may interfere for jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, perversity or an error apparent on the record, but may not simply substitute its view of the evidence.
Source reference: p. 3–5, paras 8–13The Court relied on Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78; and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30, as well as Pankaj Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors., 2024:DHC:9322, and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny Grover, 2025:DHC:11285, on the restricted scope of revision.
Source reference: p. 3–5, paras 9–12It also considered the service principles set out in Mr. Sanjay Rathi, Adv. v. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Adv. concerning simultaneous modes of service and Victor Brothers & Another v. Yogesh Chandra concerning service under the DRC Act.
Source reference: p. 7–10, paras 14–16Reasoning
The Court held that the Rent Controller had considered the process-server’s report, the petitioner’s conduct when the matter was first taken up, his later explanations, and the postal material.
Source reference: p. 11–12, paras 18–20The petitioner had not disputed Kumar’s identity or that he received the summons after contacting the petitioner; the initial objection concerned only the alleged incompleteness of the documents, while the challenge to service was raised later.
Source reference: p. 11–12, paras 18–20The Rent Controller had also found the petitioner’s account—that Kumar was not his employee or agent yet later handed him the summons after a Kawad Yatra—internally inconsistent and unsupported by particulars; the High Court found no basis in revision to reappraise that factual assessment.
Source reference: p. 12–13, paras 21–22Further, postal receipts, tracking reports and an affidavit supported the finding of service, and the alleged simultaneous deliveries raised, at most, an evidentiary question rather than establishing a revisional error.
Source reference: p. 13–14, paras 23–26Given the restricted scope of Section 25B(8), the Court concluded that the Rent Controller’s decision was a reasoned adjudication and that no ground for interference was shown.
Source reference: p. 14–16, paras 27–35Holding
The High Court held that the challenge to service disclosed no jurisdictional infirmity, material irregularity, manifest illegality or perversity warranting revision.
As the finding of valid service stood and the petitioner had not filed an application for leave to defend within the statutory period, the eviction proceedings could not be reopened on the grounds raised.
Source reference: p. 15–17, paras 33–36The revision petition and all pending applications were dismissed.
Source reference: p. 15–17, paras 33–36Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Civil Procedure, 19081
Original Court PDF
Surender AroravsShanta Chibber
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
