In a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, a significant case involving a dispute over summons service between a landlord and tenant was settled. The court’s decision underscores the adherence to proper procedures in serving legal summons. The case brought by the landlord against the tenant delves into the complexities of service requirements, with implications for both parties involved.
Facts
- Petitioner/tenant argued that the report of the postman on the envelope containing the summons was procured by the respondent in collusion.
- Petitioner/tenant claimed that the report cannot be relied upon due to alleged collusion.
- The argument of collusion was presented to challenge the validity of the report.
Issue
- Question of whether the summons in the prescribed format were served on the petitioner/tenant is the key issue.
- The main contention is the validity of the service of the summons.
- The judgement revolves around determining if the summons were duly served according to the prescribed format.
- Key point of dispute is whether the petitioner/tenant received the summons as required by law.
Arguments
- Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that service of summons through civil court is not covered in the specific procedure laid out in Chapter IIIA of the Act.
- The petitioner’s counsel presented documents related to a civil suit between the parties, showing that the prescribed format was followed through four modes of service.
- Based on the evidence presented, the Rent Controller’s decision was deemed to be correct.
- Learned counsel for respondent pointed out multiple efforts of the petitioner to avoid service of summons.
- The respondent’s counsel walked through the record to highlight the petitioner’s attempts to evade service of summons.
Analysis
- Postman visited the address on 04.11.2015, 05.11.2015, and 06.11.2015 but addressee not found.
- Address on postal envelope is correct.
- Rent Controller concluded petitioner/tenant was avoiding summons.
- Service of summons through publication and affixation was directed.
- Report of process server in pleading file shows attempts to serve summons.
- Copy of returned envelope of postal summons is in pleading file.
- No challenge to genuineness of process server report.
- Summons affixed at premises on 30.10.2015 and published in newspaper on 02.11.2015.
- No allegation of collusion between respondent and process server.
- Allegation of collusion between respondent and local postman mentioned.
- Copy of summons report with premises found locked on 30.10.2015 in trial court record.
- Petitioner/tenant did not provide further evidence regarding collusion.
- Section 25B(3)(a) of the Act mandates service of summons on the tenant or his authorized agent.
- Summons were not served on the tenant on 05.10.2015 as the tenant was not present, and there was no authorization for the counsel to accept the service.
- The landlord had no reason to anticipate the tenant avoiding service on 02.06.2015.
- Service of summons was done through substituted modes of affixation and publication as the tenant was avoiding service.
- Despite service in the prescribed format, the tenant chose not to respond, leading to the petition being dismissed.
Case Title: SHRAWAN SULTANIA Vs. AVNEET GOYAL (2024:DHC:3661)
Case Number: RC.REV.-454/2016
