A tenant who fails to obtain leave to contest an eviction petition within the prescribed time limit cannot avoid an eviction order, and the eviction order passed against him is not an ex-parte decree.

( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent claiming to be owner landlord of the premises in suit, namely, 115, State Bank Colony, Rana Pratapbagh, Delhi filed an eviction petition against the petitionerhere in onorabout8. 7. 1993underclause (e)tothe proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as an Act ). 778 The respondent herein sought eviction of the petitioner tenant from the suit premises on the ground that the premises were required bona fide by him for his own residence and the residence of his family and that he had no other alternative residential accommodation available with him in Delhi. The summons in the prescribed form were ordered to be issued to the tenant for 18. 10. 1993, 16. 11. 1993, 25. 11. 1993,6. 12. 1993 and 15. 2. 1994. The tenant was, however, served by way of publication in the daily national Herald . The summons were published on 23. 3. 1994. While the next date of hearing fixed in the case before the Additional Rent Controller was 11. 4. 1994. On 11. 4. 1994, there was no appearance on behalf of the tenant. The Additional Rent Controller noted that the summons had been served on the tenant through publication in the national Herald on 23. 3. 1994. It was further noticed that no application for leave to defend had been filed. The period of 15 days from the date of publication of notice in the newspaper had expired. Therefore, the Additional Rent Controller proceeded as per the procedure prescribed under Section 25b of the Act and passed an eviction order against the tenant under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Act. The tenant moved an application on 21. 11. 1994 before the Additional Rent Controller under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the eviction order passed on 11. 4. 1994. Along with the said application, another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was also filed. The respondent landlord filed replies to both the said applications. Vide order dated 23. 1. 1995, both the applications were dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller. In the said order, the Additional Rent Controller has discussed at length the question of service of summons on the tenant. He has also taken a view that the order dated 11. 4. 1994 was not an ex-parte order. The same was passed as per the provisions of Section 25b of the Act. According to these provisions, it is for the tenant to apply and obtain leave to contest the eviction petition and if the tenant fails to do so, the averments in the eviction petitionare deemed to be correct and an evictionorder must follow. Therefore, the Additional Rent Controller was of the view that it was not an ex- parte decree which was passed against the tenant. The applications of the tenant were rejected.

( 2 ) THE tenant has filed the present revision petitions against both the orders of the Additional Rent Controller. The first revision petition is directed against the order dated 11. 4. 1994 whereby the eviction order was passed while the other revision petition is directed against the order dated 23. 1. 1995 rejecting the applications of the tenant for setting aside the ex-parte decree.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. So far as the question of service of the summons on the tenant is concerned, it is apparent from the record that thrice attempt was made. to serve the tenant. On each of the three occasions, the summons were sent by ordinary process as well as by Registered A/d post. So far as the summons sent by ordinary process are concerned, in the first report the process server is stated to have met the wife of the tenant who refused to accept the summons and it was stated that the tenant was out of station. On the other two occasions, the process server met the servant of the tenant who on each occasion stated that the tenant was out of station and the servant did not receive the summons. This is the po