Sultan Singh, J.
(1) This revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on behalf of the tenant challenges the order dated May 19,1980 passed by the Additional Controller, Delhi. By the impugned order the Ad
(2) The respondent-landlord filed eviction application on March, 27, 1980. Summons was ordered to be issued in the prescribed form and the case was fixed for May 15, 1980. It appears that the landlord did not file the registered cover but paid the process fee only. The summons issued in the ordinary manner on the prescribed form was personally served upon the petitioner on April 16, 1980. The petitioner on May5, 1980 filed an application stating that he was served on April 16, 1980 with the summons along with a copy of the eviction application, which was not in the prescribed form i.e , form 'A' under the Delhi Rent Control Rules and as such there was no proper service. He prayed that he be got supplied a copy of the application on the proper form to enable him to file an application for leave to contest. The Additional controller by the impugned order held that contentions raised by the tenant could have been heard if the tenant had come within the statutory period of 15 days. No application for leave to contest was filed by the petitioner. The Additional Controller, thereforee, passed the eviction order. The petitioner has come up in revision.
(3) The main contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner has not been issued summons in accordance with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 25B of the Act. He says that the summons ought to have been issued in the ordinary manner as well as by registered post and if he has not been served by registered post there is no compliance with Section 25B(3) of the Act and as such there was no proper service upon him. Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Act requires the Controller to issue summons in the ordinary manner as well as by registered A.D. post for service on the tenant. ' This section or any other section of the Act, however, does not provide the consequences for not issuing registered cover containing the summons to the tenant. The object of sub-section (3) of Section 25B of the Act is that the tenant be served personally. The Legislature has taken the precaution for the issue of summons to the tenant in all the possible ways. This sub-section provides service in the ordinary manner as well as by registered post and if necessary by publication in a newspaper. All the methods have been provided just to make summary procedure a speedy one but there is no provision that if personal service has been effected in one of the ways, failure to get served by registered A.D. post as required bysub-section (3) of Section 25B would wipe out the personal service effected in the ordinary manner. Thus it seems to me that though sub-section (3) of Section 25B prescribes service in both ways on the tenant but if the tenant has been served personally in one of the ways the service is proper service within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 25B of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 25B further provides that the tenant is to apply for leave to contest. This section speaks of service either in the ordinary way or by registered post. In other words it means that if the tenant has been served by one of the ways mentioned in sub-section (3) he is required to obtain leave in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Chaman Lal Sareen v. Sq. Ldr. Ved Prakash 1980 (1) R.C.R. 300, wherein it has been observed that the Controller has to issue summons to a tenant in the ordinary manner as well as by registered cover and that if summons sent in ordinary manner was refused by the tenant it would not mean valid service. In that case it appears the summons sent in the ordinary manner only was not personally served upon the tenant and thereforee it was held that there was no service as no attempt was made to effect service by registered post. Mr. Chaudhary also relies upon Om Prakash v. Brij Nath Sharma (1980) D.L.T. 313, wherein also the observation is that the tenant is to be served in the ordinary manner as well as by registered post.
(4) The landlord in that case had given two addresses of the tenant for service and it was observed that the summons ought to have been issued at the two addresses in the ordinary manner as well as by registered post. From the facts of that case it appears that the tenant was not served and thereforee this court took the view that there was no proper service. Again the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Surinder Kumar Jain v. Prem Kumar (1980) D.R.J. 170 wherein also it has been laid down that summons must be issued both in the ordinary manner as well as by registered post and the at if in both there is due service but on different dates, then the tenant can contend that time should run from the later of the two. In all these authorities the point in issue in the present case did not arise. In the present case the question is whether the petitioner was duly served if ordinary summons only was served upon him, and no summons was sent by registered post. On a reference to sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 25B it appears that the object is to effect service of the summons relating to the application for eviction in any of the prescribed methods. The emphasis is upon service and not on the mode of service The Legislature provided all the possible ways to effect service upon the tenant but once personal service is duly effected there is no reason to hold the service as invalid on the ground that the other mode prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 25B has not been followed. Sub-section (4) comes into play as soon as service is effected. No appearance was put in by the petitioner and no application for leave to contest was filed within the period of 15 days from the date of service. The Controller had no alternative but to pass an order for eviction in accordance with sub-section (4) of Section 25B of the Act, under which the allegations contained in the eviction application are deemed to have been admitted by the tenant if he fails to appear or obtain leave to contest. The next objection is that the copy of the eviction application served upon him is not in form 'A' as prescribed under the Rules. The respondent-landlord has used the printed form 'A' under the Rules wherein the questions are printed and the answers are typed giving Seriall number of all the questions. The copy of the application served on the petitioner is not on the printed form but it mentions the names of the parties and answers to all the twenty questions mentioned in form 'A'. On a perusal and comparison of the original eviction petition and the copy now produced by the petitioner it appears that it is a carbon copy of the original eviction petition. In these circumstances it seems to me that the copy supplied to the petitioner was a proper copy. In any case I am of the view that this might have been taken by the tenant as one of the grounds for seeking leave to contest the eviction application but no attempt was made by him to approach the Controller within the period of 15 days from the date of service. Lastly it is pointed out that the left-hand corner of the summons mentions a date '15-5-1980' which means that the case is to be taken up by the Controller on that date. The contents of the summons expressly require the addressee Krishan Lal petitioner-tenant to appear before the Controller within 15 days of the service thereof and to obtain leave to contest the eviction application and in default whereof the applicant will be entitled at any time after the expiry of the said period of 15 days to obtain an order for eviction from the premises. There is a clear direction to the petitioner-tenant that he should act and take necessary steps within 15 days of the service' He had been warned that after the expiry of 15 days the landlord would be entitled to obtain an order for eviction. No reason has been given by the petitioner why he waited up to May 15, 1980 and did not apply for leave within time. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an illiterate person and, thereforee, he approached the court on May 15,1980. This is no reason. The petitioner-tenant does not know 'English', he signs in 'Hindi' only. He must have got the summons read out from a third person. There is no ground for not approaching the Additional Controller for leave to contest within 15 days from the date of service. I am, thereforee, of the view that the petitioner was duly served with the summons of the eviction application in the prescribed form as given in the Iii schedule of the Act, on April 16, 1980 and he neither appeared nor filed any application for leave to contest the application for eviction. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the additional Controller. The eviction order is in accordance with law. There is no merit in the revision petition. It is dismissed with no order as to costs.