The limitation period for setting aside an ex parte order under Rule 9(3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, should be computed from the date of knowledge of the passing of the order, where there has been no due service of summons.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition filed at the instance of the landlord and arises out of R. C. No. 19 of 1956 filed before the Rent Controller, Guntur, for eviction of the respondent. When notice was taken of the eviction petition, it is said that the respondent refused to receive the same. Accordingly, a copy of the notice was affixed to the house in which the respondent was residing and the duplicate notice was returned to the Controller. It must be noted that the copy of the notice which was returned to the Controller was not signed by the amin or the process-server who purported to serve the notice of the eviction petition. When the matter same up for enquiry on 16th February, 1956, an order for eviction was passed. Pursuant thereto proceedings to evict the respondent were launched, and when the respondent came to know of the execution petition, he filed I. A. No. 18 of 1956 before the Controller for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction. This application was filed on 12th June, 1956. The application was ordered by the Controller. This order was set aside on appeal by the Subordinate Judge, Guntur. On a revision petiion preferred to the District Judge, Guntur, he restored the order of the controller setting aside the ex parte order of eviction. It is against this order in revision by the District Judge that the landlord has preferred the present Civil revision Petition under section 115, Civil Procedure Code.

( 2 ) IT is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petition to restore the ex parte order of eviction has been filed beyond the period prescribed by the Rules. The relevant rule of the Rules framed under G. O. No. 1764/pub. , dated 28th June, 1951, under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, so far as is relevant, is as follows :-"9 (i) When an application under the Act is presented to the Controller, he shall fix the date on which and the place at which the inqury in respect of the application will be held and send notice thereof to the applicant or applicants and the respondent or respondents mentioned in the application and shall also send a copy of the application along with the notice to the respondent or respondents : (2) The Controller shall give to the parties a reasonable opportunity to state their case. He shall also record a brief note of the evidence of the parties and witnesses, if any, examined on either side and upon the evidence so recorded and after consideration of any documentary evidence which may be produced by the parties pass orders on the application. (3) In any case in which an order is passed ex parte against a tenant or a landlord, he may, within thirty days from the date of the pronouncement of the order in open Court apply to the Controller by whom the order was passed for an order to set it aside ; and if he satisfies the Controller that the summons was not duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the application was called on for hearing, the Controller shall make an order setting aside the order passed against the tenant or landlord, as the case may be, upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as the Controller thinks fit and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the application : provided further that, in computing the period of thirty days under this sub-rule, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the order shall be excluded. "

( 3 ) THE sub-rule (3) quoted above is similar to the provisions of Article 164 of the limitation Act under which the defendant can apply for setting aside an ex parte decree within thirty days from the date of the decree or where the summons is not duly served within thirty days from the date of his knowledge of the decree. No doubt, though sub-rule (3) of rule 9 is modelled upon Article 164 of the Limitation act and the provisions of Order 9, rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, it has been defectively framed. Reading the rule strictly, even in a case where a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document