( 1 ) THE challenge in this revision petition undersection 25b (8) is to the eviction order which has been passed against the petitioner tenant on an eviction petition having been filed by the landlady.

( 2 ) THE landlady filed a petition under Section 14 (l) (e) read with section 25b of the Act against the tenant, who is occupying the first floor of premises No. F-18, Geetanjali Enclave New Delhi. The landlady herself is residing on the ground floor of the said house. Summons were issued by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, under the Third Schedule, to the tenant. The tenant could not be personally served. The summons were received by his son. Though, as per the record, summons were also directed to be issued by registered AD, but there is nothing on record to show that such direction was complied with.

( 3 ) ON the date which was fixed for hearing, namely, 23rd February, 1981 acounsel appeared on behalf of the tenant. I was admitted that affidavit had not been filed seeking ieave to contest the eviction petition but it was contended that there has been no valid service of the summons on the tenant. The counsel for the tenant also intimated to the court that the tenant himself was out of India and was in Sri Lanka.

( 4 ) THE Additional Rent Controller took the view that as within 15 days of the service, which had been effected on the son of the tenant, an application for leave to contest Bad not been filed it must be presumed that the statements made in the eviction petition were deemed to be admitted. After going through the averments made in the eviction the trial court allowed the same and passed an order of eviction against the tenant. The tenant was, however, given six months time to vacate the premises.

( 5 ) THE aforesaid decision is challenged in the present revision petition. It is contended by the learned counsel, while replying upon the case of Om Prakash Sharma v. Brij Nalh Sharma 1980 D. L. T. 313, that in order that there should be valid service of summons the same must be served on the tenant himself.

( 6 ) AN important question which arises in this case is with regard to the mode and manner of service of summons which is issued under Section 25b of the Act. The relevant provisions of Section 25b, in this behalf, are set out below:

"25b (2) The Controller shall issue summons, in relation to every application REFERRED TO to in sub-section (1), in the form specified in the third schedule. 3 (a) The Controller shall, in addition to, and simultaneously with the issue of summons for service on the tenant, also direct the summons to be served by registered post, acknowledgment due, addressed to the tenant or his agent empowered to accept the service at the place where the tenant or his agent actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain and may, if the circumstances of the case so require, also direct the publication of the summons in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the tenant is last known to have resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain. (b) When an acknowledgment purporting to be signed bv the tenant or his agent is received by the Controller or the registered article containing the summons is received back with an endorsement purporting to have been made by a postal employee to the effect that the tenant or his agent had refused to take delivery of the registered article, the Controller may declare that there has been a valid service of summons. 4. The tenant on whom the summons is duly served (whether in the ordinary way or by registered post) in the form specified in the in the Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files an affidavit staling the grounds on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided; and in default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his obtaining such leave, the state