HIGH COURT OF DELHI HOLDS THAT RENT CONTROLLER MAY PASS ADVERSE ORDER AGAINST A PARTY FOR FAILING TO FILE PLEADINGS DESPITE RECEIPT OF CORRECT SUMMONS

A single Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi passed a judgement dated 28.03.2024 in Kulwant Singh V. Vikas Ahuja Rc.Rev. 248/2023 wherein the Hon’ble Court dismissed the Petition filed by the Petitioner/Tenant on the ground that the Petitioner had deliberately avoided the service of summons issued by the Ld. Additional Rent Controller. Further, in such case, the Ld. Additional Rent Controller, after serving repeated summons in the prescribed format, can pass an adverse order against such party.

Facts

The Respondent in the present case, is the owner of the premises bearing no.AF-6A, Ground Floor, Janta Flats, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (Subject Premises) and pleaded before the Civil Court that the present Petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the Subject Premises on 01.05.2010 for a period of 11 months only, but despite expiry of that period, the Petitioner did not vacate the Subject Premises, so the present Respondent filed a Civil Suit for recovery of possession.

The said Suit was dismissed on the ground that civil courts did not have jurisdiction to deal with tenancy disputes under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (Act) (Jurisdiction of civil courts barred in respect of certain matters). Later, the Respondent filed an Eviction Petition before the Ld. Additional Rent Controller against the present Petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act (Protection of tenant against eviction).

The Ld. Additional Rent Controller recorded the Order dated 08.08.2019 and issued summons to the Petitioner herein. But despite clear directions in the said Order, the Court staff- Ahlmad had wrongly issued summons for settlement of issues, which are issued in civil suits, instead of issuing the normal summons. On service of those summons, the present Petitioner continued to appear on few dates and even filed written statement, but thereafter stopped appearing.

After a few dates, the Ld. Additional Rent Controller realised that the summons had been issued in an improper manner; thus new summons in the format stipulated in Schedule III to the Delhi Rent Control Act were ordered and issued. The Summons in the specified manner was served to the Petitioner on 23.11.2021, at the Subject Premises and were duly received by his brother Anil Kumar. Even so, the current Petitioner appeared before the Ld. Additional Rent Controller but chose not to file an application for leave to challenge.

Before the Ld. Additional Rent Controller, the present Petitioner contended that Anil Kumar, who had received the Summons in prescribed format is not his brother and is not authorized to accept summons on his behalf. The said matter was adjourned several times due to several reasons including Covid-19 lockdown in the country. Finally, on 16.05.2023, after hearing further submissions on behalf of the Petitioner, the Petitioner did not file an application for leave to contest, so the Respondent’s pleadings in the Eviction Petition were considered admitted. Thus, the Ld. Additional Rent Controller passed the impugned Order dated 16.05.2023, thereby directing eviction of the present Petitioner from the Subject Premises because he had opted not to file an application seeking leave to contest the proceedings.

Therefore, the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi to assail the Eviction Order dated 16.05.2023 passed by the Ld. Additional Rent Controller. The Petitioner, contended that since the service of summons in prescribed format was not done, there was no occasion for him to file application for leave to contest.

Learned Counsel for Petitioner also submitted alternate contention that the Ld. Additional Rent Controller ought to have treated the written statement as application for leave to contest filed by him.

The Counsel for the Respondent argued that the time prescribed for filing an application for leave to contest would commence only on service of summons in the prescribed format on the tenant and which was done well in time.

Issues

I) Whether the improper summons were issued to the Petitioner and he did not get the opportunity to file the leave to contest?

II) Whether the said Anil Kumar, who admittedly received the summons, had so received the same as brother or authorized representative of the Petitioner?

Decision by the High Court

The Hon’ble High Court held that despite continuous summons, the Petitioner deliberately avoided the service and held that in the present case, the Petitioner kept sitting quiet, awaiting culmination of the proceedings in order to raise the issue of faulty summons. Not only this, the Ld. Additional Rent Controller having realized the inadvertent procedural error qua the format of summons, issued fresh Summons repeatedly in the prescribed format.

The Hon’ble Court also took consideration of the fact that as the earlier summons were issued to his alleged brother Anil Kumar, the Petitioner did appear in the Court and also filed the Written Statement thereafter. The stand taken on behalf of Petitioner that Anil Kumar who received the correct Summons in the prescribed format was not related to the Petitioner/Tenant did not appear truthful to the High Court.

Conclusion

The High Court held that on account of failure on the part of the present Petitioner to file application for leave to contest despite service of Summons in the prescribed format, the Ld. Additional Rent Controller was right in passing the Eviction Order against the Petitioner. Thus, the Impugned Order dated 16.05.2023 passed by the Ld. Additional Rent Controller was upheld and the Petition filed by the Petitioner/Tenant was dismissed.

 

 

ARJAV JAIN

ASSOCIATE

THE INDIAN LAWYER & ALLIED SERVICES