The refusal to receive a registered notice does not constitute service of notice, and proceedings conducted without proper service of notice are illegal.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition against the orders of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, has been filed by the Landlord under Section 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

( 2 ) THE facts leading up to this revision petition are the following: The petitioner filed Case No. 1154/60/ev before the Rent Controller, Hyderabad, against the tenant for eviction of the tenant from house bearing No. 22-1-277 (old No. 3894) situated at Anduroon Chaderghat. Tha Landlord who is a woman alleged that the tenant has denied her title and wilfully defaulted to pay the rent. She also complained that the tenant has un-authorisedly sub-let portions of the house. She also maintained that the house was bona fide required for use as her residence.

( 3 ) THE Rent Controller considered that the refusal of the tenant to receive notice of the proceedings sent by registered post entitled him to set the tenant ex parte and proceed to consider the application for eviction. He held that the petitioner owned the house, that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of the rents; and that inasmuch as he also found that the house was required for the use of the landlord, he ordered eviction. He, however, negatived the contention of the landlord that the tenant sub-let the house.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by this order, the tenant filed Appeal No. 15/3 of 19s1 in the City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondent (landlord) that the appeal is barred by limitation as it was filed six days after the time allowed for filing the appeal. This was met by the appellant therein by alleging that he had no knowledge of the proceedings before the Rent Controller and that he was never served with the notices of the proceedings before the Rent Controller. The landlord, had, therefore, to rely upon the notice sent by registered post and the endorsement of refusal thereon to prove that service was effected. This is countered by the tenant averring that fraud was practised in the matter of service of the registered notice and therefore the tenant is entitled to rely upon Section 18 of the Limitation Act and compute the time available to him for filing the appeal as from the date when the fraud first became known to him. The learned Chief Judge of the City Small Causes Court held the view that though Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act did not apply, the appellant (tenant) was, however, entitled to the protection afforded by Section 18. In that view and also because he felt that the order of setting the respondent to the eviction petition ex parte does not serve the ends of justice, he allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Rent Controller to pass a fresh order after taking evidence of the parties.

( 5 ) IN this revision petition, Mr. Ranga Rao for the petitioner (landlord) conterded that the lower Court has misapplied Section 18 of the Limitation Act and illegally entertained the appeal overlooking the bar of limitation by time. In support of this, his arguments were two-fold. Firstly, he maintained that Section 18 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable to the case of an appeal, and that there-fore the plea of the tenant based upon fraud as giving him an extended period of limitation for the purpose of filing an appeal will not avail the tenant. A reading of the section, to my mind, supports this contention. Section 18 of the Limitation Act is in the following terms: Where any person having a right to institute a suit or make an application has, by means of fraud, been kept from the knowledge of such right or of the title on which it is founded, or where any document necessary to establish such right has been fraudulently concealed from him, the time limited for instituting a suit or making an application-- (a) against the person guilty of the fraud or accessory thereto, or (b) against any person claiming through him otherwise than in good faith and for