Delhi High Court Dismisses Tenant's Challenge to Eviction Order for Lack of Diligence.
14 March 2024
Rent >> Property & Real Estate
The Delhi High Court (DHC) dismissed a revision petition filed by a tenant challenging an eviction order issued by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) under the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). The landlord had sought eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA, claiming bona fide requirement for their own use.
Factual Background:
The case centered on a commercial property dispute in Karol Bagh, Delhi. The landlord initiated eviction proceedings against the tenant, who subsequently contended they were not served with summons and only became aware of the eviction order one day prior to the hearing date.
Tenant's Argument:
The tenant argued for a lack of due process, asserting that without proper service of summons, they were denied the opportunity to contest the eviction petition. Their sole knowledge of the proceedings allegedly stemmed from a third party who overheard the landlord's son-in-law discussing the eviction order.
Court's Reasoning:
The DHC found the tenant's explanation unpersuasive. The court records demonstrably revealed that the summons were issued in the prescribed format and delivered to the tenant's registered address. Furthermore, the process server's report detailed multiple attempts to serve the tenant at the shop location. Notably, the report also mentioned the presence of signage for the tenant's business at the address. The court further emphasized the tenant's lack of action in notifying the court of the alleged service deficiency. Neither an application contesting the eviction nor any communication regarding the purported lack of service was filed, even after the tenant became aware of the order.
Deliberate Avoidance Inferred:
Based on the documented service attempts and the tenant's subsequent inaction, the DHC inferred deliberate avoidance of service. The court acknowledged the possibility of both tenant evasion to delay proceedings and landlord fabrication of service reports. However, in this specific case, the court found no evidence to suggest any foul play by the landlord.
Eviction Order Upheld:
Since the tenant failed to file an application to contest the eviction despite being demonstrably served, the DHC upheld the eviction order issued by the ARC. This judgment underscores the critical importance for tenants to be available for service and to take prompt action when contesting legal proceedings.