Service of summons on a 16-year-old son of the petitioner is invalid as he is not an adult member of the family within the meaning of Order 5 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Tribunal) dated 30. 11. 1990 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Controller) dated 24. 11. 1990 was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows :-

THE respondent landlady filed a petition for eviction against the petitioner in respect of a shop forming part of house no. 27 Ashok Park Extension, Rohtak Road, Delhi under Section 14 (1) (a), (b), (c) and (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Summons were issued to the petitioner herein through ordinary process as well as by registered post. The summons sent by registered post came back with the remark that the addressee was not available despite repeated visits, however it is alleged that the summons sent through ordinary process were served on the son of the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not appear before the Controller in response to the said summons, after recording ex-parte evidence, an ex-parte eviction order was passed against the petitioner on 17. 10. 1989. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Code) praying that the ex-parte decree be set aside. It was submitted in the said application that the summons were not personally served on the petitioner.

( 3 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner came to know about the eviction petition only when he received notice of the execution for 10. 8. 1990 which was received by the wife of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that even in the execution petition, initially notice was served on the daugater Santosh Sharma on 1. 3. 90 for appearance on 9. 3. 90 however the particulars of the case and Court etc. were not given to the daughter and only her signatures were obtained. Therefore, the petitioner s counsel wrote a letter to the respondent seeking particulars of the case filed by the respondent against him for eviction. However, the respondent did not respond to this notice sent by the petitioner s counsel and did not furnish the particulars and only when the notice was served on the wife of the petitioner that he came to know about the execution proceedings and immediately on the next day he moved an application after taking inspection for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Learned counsel submitted that the service of summons on the son who is only 16 years old does not meet the requirement of law inasmuch as under Rule 15 of Order 5 of the Code it is only when a defendant is not available at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female who is residing with him. Thus, when it was found that the petitioner was not available on the day the service was sought to be effected, attempt should have been made once again to have it served on the petitioner personally before serving it on his son. Learned counsel submitted that the son is only 16 years old and he is not an adult member within the meaning of Rule 15 of Order 5 of the Code and thus service of summons on the son cannot be taken into consideration.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that 16 years old son is an adult within the meaning of Rule 15 of Order 5 of the Code. It was submitted that it is not necessary to make more than one attempt to have the defendant served personally. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had full knowledge of the proceedings pending in the Court and the suit for evicti