Judgment:
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. The landlady/widow filed a petition under Section 14D of DRC Act for eviction of the petitioner. Notice of this petition was sent to the respondent through registered covers as well as through ordinary process and UPC. As per the report of the process server, the respondent refused to receive the notice. He was then served through substituted service. Still no leave to defend was filed. So, the learned ARC passed an eviction order in respect of the premises on 8th October, 2002. A copy of the eviction order was also directed to be sent to the tenant. The tenant thereafter moved an application under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside this ex parte order alleging therein that he was never served with the summons and summons were not tendered either by post or through process server and he had not refused summons issued by the Court. He learnt about the case only on 4th December, 2002 when he came back from Punjab and found that some summons had come to the house in his absence from the Court for 18th November, 2002. The respondent then immediately contacted his counsel and directed him to do the needful who after enquiry came to know that the notice of passing eviction order has been sent to him.
2. It was submitted that the reports of the process server on record of the ARC that summons were refused were false and procured reports. He had never refused the summons. The publication was made in 'National Herald' newspaper. He was not subscribing to this newspaper. According to petitioner his son, Sushil Jain had met the process server and told him that the petitioner was out of Delhi. However, process server gave a different and false report.
3. The application was contested by the landlady who stated that the petitioner was keeping track of the proceedings. He deliberately first refused to receive the summons. The registered cover sent at his house came back undelivered. However, the registered covers was manipulated very cleverly and summons were seen and then put back and sent back. It was also submitted that summons were also sent by UPC and ordinary process and the petitioner had deliberately refused to receive the summons through court bailiff. Publication of summons was done only by way of abundant precaution. The petitioner had taken contradictory stand in his application. The application does not explain how he came to know on 4th December, 2002 that there were summons from the Court when nobody informed him. The application also reflects that he had knowledge of the visit of process server. The respondent had not produced any travel ticket or any documents to show that he was out of station and came back on 4th December, 2002.
4. The learned ARC considered the record and the report of the process server and postal record and came to conclusion that the respondent met the process server on 19th July, 2002 and the respondent was aware of the proceedings of the Court. The application of the tenant was not supported by any documentary proof showing that he was out of home or away. No travel ticket was placed on record. The Trial Court also observed that the respondent was tendered registered cover by postal authorities but the registered letter was also not received and came back unclaimed to the Court. The fact that the address on the registered letter was correct is not disputed. The Trial Court dismissed the application.
5. It is contented by the petitioner that the Trial Court had not followed the principle of natural justice in dismissing the petitioner's application for setting aside ex parte eviction order dated 8th October, 2002 and the Trial Court wrongly relied upon the reports of the process server. It is also submitted that the process server did not follow the procedure laid down in High Court Rules that if the person is not found in the premises, the process server has to affix a copy of the summons on the outer door. Since the process server did not affix the copy of the summons on the outer door, it cannot be considered as a proper service.
6. It is not case of the petitioner that summons were not sent at correct address. Where summons are sent through registered post at the correct address of the party and the registered letter comes back since the addressee did not claim it, it only shows that the addressee deliberately refused to receive the letter. The summons sent through UPC are just left at the premises. In case of registered letter acknowledgment is sought from the person. In this case, the registered letter came back unclaimed because petitioner refused to claim it. The report of process server also shows that petitioner deliberately did not receive summons of the Court and did not appear.
7. It is settled law that the Court has to presume that the things done in ordinary course of business were done regularly and as per the procedure. A registered letter which has been sent through the post is presumed to have been tendered and received back unclaimed only on refusal by the addressee. Court cannot presume that postman got mixed up with landlord and gave wrong report. Similarly, process server is an agent of the Court. No presumption is there that he will give false report. The process sever in this case recorded that he went to the address given in the summons and a person who was not known to process server met at the address. The landlord's agent pointed out to the person as Satya Pal Jain. He then asked that person who he was. He gave his name as Satya Pal Jain. He tendered a copy of petition with summons which he refused to receive and he prepared a report in presence of the witness and submitted to the Court. This report is dated 19th July, 2002 when summons of Eviction Petition were sent to petitioner. The petitioner even refused information sent later on in respect of the eviction order passed against him. Though the notice refused by petitioner should have been considered sufficient to proceed against him but it seems as an abundant precaution, the learned ARC directed for service of summons through publication also. Even if the petitioner was not subscribing to 'National Herald', whenever court summons are published in a newspaper, a copy of the newspaper is sent at the address of the noticee through UPC and the Court notice is specially marked in it and when the noticee receives such a newspaper copy by post, he gets properly served. In the present case all efforts to serve the summons on the petitioner were made futile by the petitioner who deliberately refused to receive the summons by saying that he would receive the summons only on his counsel's advise. His plea that the report of process server was a procured report is totally unbelievable and against the legal presumption. His application is silent as how he came to know about passing of the decree when he had not received even the notice sent by the Court about passing of eviction decree. All this shows that the petitioner was trying to play smart with the Court and was keeping a watch and soon after passing of the date of 18th November, 2002, he made this application for setting aside eviction order.
8. In Precision Steel and Engineering Works and Anr. v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal (1982) 3 SCC 271 Supreme Court observed as under:
Before concluding on this point conceding that a summary procedure has been devised so that the bane of law courts and legal procedure as at present in vogue manifestly showing regard for the truth being the last item on the list of priorities and, therefore, the tenant should not necessarily be permitted to prolong the litigation and cause hardship to the landlord who is seeking possession on the ground of personal requirement by raising untenable and frivolous defence where speedy decision is desirable in the interest of society, does not imply that ignoring the mandate of law, the Controller should hold trial at a stage not prescribed by the statute.
9. I consider that the tenant cannot be allowed, by adopting such device as in this case, to defeat the very purpose of Section 25-B. In this case, the petitioner adopted a device of not appearing before the Rent Controller and later on taking a plea that he was not at all served. By this method, the petitioner has succeeded in dragging the case already for six years.
10. I find that the petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.