Service of the summons has to be on the tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service: Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction Order
The Delhi High Court today dismissed a revision petition filed against an eviction order, ruling that the service of summons was appropriately executed under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioner had contested the eviction, claiming non-service of summons in the prescribed manner.
Legal Point of the Judgement: Justice Girish Kathpalia addressed the crucial issue of whether the summons were properly served as per the statutory requirements of the Delhi Rent Control Act. This case hinges on the procedural adherence to serving summons, which forms the foundation of lawful eviction proceedings.
Facts and Issues: The eviction petition was initiated by the respondent, claiming a bona fide need for the premises occupied by the petitioner for his expanding family business. Despite the issuance of summons, the petitioner did not file an application to contest the eviction, leading to the Rent Controller’s order on November 23, 2015, favoring the respondent.
Detailed Court Assessment: Verification of Service Methods: The court reviewed the methods of summons service — direct, via registered post, and through publication — and validated their execution despite the petitioner’s avoidance, noting “the efforts made to serve the summons were systematic and legally sound.”
Petitioner’s Avoidance Tactics: Detailed findings indicated the petitioner avoided receiving the summons, with credible reports from the process server and postman establishing attempts at service.
Substituted Service Justification: The court upheld the substituted service via affixation and newspaper publication as the petitioner continued to evade the normal process, satisfying the legal standards for such measures under the circumstances.
Legal Procedures and Authority: The argument for serving summons in the presence of a civil court was dismissed, with the court clarifying that the prescribed procedure under the Delhi Rent Control Act was followed meticulously by the respondent.
Decision of Judgement: The court found no infirmity in the eviction order and dismissed the petition, affirming that the service of summons met all required legal standards, thus nullifying the petitioner’s claims of improper service. The failure of the petitioner to engage in the legal process, despite the duly served summons, substantiated the eviction order’s legality.
Date of Decision: May 7, 2024
SHRAWAN SULTANIA Vs. AVNEET GOYAL
