Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. At this stage, let me straightaway turn to the ratio and observations of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dharampal (supra) is paras 3 to 10 and which read as under:-

"3. Record shows that on 02.06.2008 summons were directed to be issued under Schedule III of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) for 25.09.2008. On 25.09.2008 notice was again ordered upon the respondent under Schedule III of the DRCA; the report of service of the earlier summons sent by ordinary process and registered A.D. had come back with the remark that premises were found locked. On 25.09.2008, notice by way of affixation was also ordered. Record further shows that the Court had noted that the service on the respondent by way of affixation had been validly effected. There is also no dispute that the service was not effected through the other two modes of service i.e. by ordinary process and registered post; report of service on the registered A.D. envelope had come back with the remarks that the premises are lying locked. The trial Court was of the view that this is a valid service and application seeking leave to defend not having been filed within the stipulated period of 15 days from 08.10.2008, the eviction petition had accordingly been decreed in favour of the landlord.

7. Let us firstly turn to the observations made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Dharampal (supra) and the facts of the case in the case of Dharampal (supra). When we read the facts of the case of Dharampal (supra), it is seen that the registered AD post had come back with the remark that the premises were found locked for 25.9.2008 when at the time of issuing of a fresh notice, service by affixation was ordered. It is specifically noted in para 3 of the judgment in the case of Dharampal (supra) that service for the next specific date could not be effected again by registered post because the premises were found locked. It is in these circumstances that the tenanted premises repeatedly being found locked and that affixation was done without existence of facts that the tenant was in fact found at the spot but had not taken/refused service, that the order of affixation was held not to be a valid service as per the provisions of Section 25(B) of the Act and its sub-section. I would of course at this stage itself note that the learned Single Judge in para-9 of the judgment in the case of Dharampal (supra) has distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Madan & Co. (supra) which has held by relying upon Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1987 that presumption of service has to be drawn once the summons are repeatedly sent by registered post to the tenant, but these observations have been made by the learned Single Judge in the context that the tenanted premises were in fact locked i.e summons were not specifically offered in person to the tenant or refused by the tenant.

11. Let us now therefore examine the reports with respect to ordinary service and registered post service issued in terms of the order dated 19.8.2013, inasmuch as, it is pursuant to this order that the petitioner/tenant has been deemed to have been served and on account of his not filing the leave to defend application within 15 days, the bonafide necessity eviction petition has been decreed.

12. So far as the report of service of registered post is concerned, though the postal article is not on record of this Court counsel for the petitioner/tenant states that postal article sent to the petitioner/tenant containing the summons came back with the report 'unclaimed' ie it is not as if the premises were found locked as in the facts of Dharampal's case (supra). Also, the expression 'unclaimed' is used by the postal department if in spite of the addressee being offered the postal article on various dates the postal article is not received by the addressee ie there is an avoidance which in fact amounts to refusal ie postal article was tendered at the given address but not received by the addressee. Therefore, the ratio of the judgment in the case of M/s Madan & Co. (supra) squarely applies because the issue with respect to the service of summons and presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, will apply even to proceedings for evicting the tenants on the ground of bonafide necessity filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Secton 25(B) of the Act. Once the petitioner/tenant was offered the postal article and he did not receive the same as the report is 'unclaimed', the postal article is deemed to be served upon the petitioner/tenant in view of the ratio of the judgment in the case of M/s Madan & Co. (supra) read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. I may note that postal rules provide that a postman cannot give a report of 'unclaimed' unless the postal article is offered over various dates to the addressee and this aspect will have to be kept in mind in view of the peculiar facts of the present case wherein the case of the petitioner/tenant is that the tenanted premises were locked, but except a self-serving statement /ipse dixit there is nothing filed on record with respect to the tenanted premises being locked. Merely filing a medical certificate pertaining to the wife of the petitioner being advised bed rest from 9.9.2013 to 15.9.2013 will not mean that the tenanted premises were locked from 9.9.2013 to 15.9.2013 and in any case the tenanted premises cannot be said to be locked before 9.9.2013. The medical report I may note is curiously/malafidely and specifically made of the date 9.9.2013 and which is obviously done because the process server's report of affixation pursuant to effective 'refusal' by the tenant denying his identity is dated 10.9.2013 for the summons issued vide order dated 19.8.2013. Tenants cannot be allowed to play games of hide and seek with the Court and judicial process.