Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Interestingly, in the present case, no such procedure, as directed under Section 18-A (3) (a) and (b) has been followed by the learned Rent Controller, who has simply relied upon the report of refusal without recording anything as to service upon the tenant by way of registered post or by way of affixation by Process Server in case of refusal, nor given any chance to verify the question of refusal on the part of the tenant and has dismissed the application simply on the ground that Dimple son of Surinder Singh (petitioner No,1/tenant) has admitted to have refused service. To my mind, the finding of the learned Rent Controller in this regard is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained to hold that service upon the tenant was validly effected on 17.7.2009. Accordingly, the application filed by the tenant for 'leave to defend' was within limitation.