By this petition the petitioner has assailed an order dated 8th May, 2008 of learned Rent Controller Tribunal (RCT). By an order dated 5th March, 2008 learned ARC had allowed an application of the respondent under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 („CPC? for short) and orders of eviction dated 7th February, 2005 and 11th May, 2005 were set aside. Learned RCT dismissed the appeal of petitioner against order dated 5th March, 2008. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposing of this petition are that the petitioner was landlord in respect of shop No. 32, Shiv Market, Masjid Road, Bhogal, Jungpura, New Delhi. This shop was let out to respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 135/-. The petitioner sent a notice to the respondent making assertions inter-alia that the shop was initially sub-let by respondent and thereafter it was lying locked. These assertions are in paragraph No. 8 of the notice and read as under:

“That for the last few years you are not in the possession and also not using the said premises and have subletted the same to one Mr. Satinder Singh C/o S.P. Electric Co., 14, N.D.S.E. Kotla Gurudwara Road, New Delhi-49. The said premises is also lying locked and closed for last few years and also the electricity connection installed in the said premises is also not being used from 10.11.1995. You have shifted your works and have been operating from Ranbeer Electric Mart, 1758, Bhagirath Place, New Delhi, and as such are not using the said premises.”

2. The above notice was addressed to the petitioner at his residential address T-82, Church Lane, Bhogal, New Delhi. However, apart from sending it at residential address of the petitioner, the notice was also sent at the address of Shop No. 32, Shiv Market, Masjid Road, Bhogal, Jangpura, New Delhi and at Ranbeer Electric Mart, 1758, Bhagirath Place, New Delhi. All the three addresses were given at the top of the notice alternatively.

3. A reply to the notice was received by the petitioner through Advocate of the respondent. In the reply, para 8 of the notice was replied as under:

“That para 8 of your legal notice is wrong and denied. It is wrong and denied that for the last few years my client is not in possession of the tenanted premises or not using the same or have sub-letted the same. It is submitted that my client is having his partnership business with his brother Mr. Satinder Singh and his late father Shri Jodh Singh being run in the name and style of M/s. Ranbir Electric Co., a partnership firm. After the death of the father of my client, my client and his younger brother Sh. Satinder Singh are running the said firm and using the tenanted premises as godown. It is wrong and denied that the said premises is lying locked or closed for last few years or the electricity connection installed in the said premises is also not used from 10.11.1995. It is submitted that my client is using the tenanted premises regularly and paying the electricity bill also regularly. It is further wrong and specifically denied that due to shifting of some work at Bhagirath Place, my client is not using the tenanted premises.”

4. After this reply, the petitioner filed an eviction petition against the respondent under Section 14(1) (a) (b) and (j) of the DRC Act. In the eviction petition, the petitioner gave residential address of the respondent as given in the notice and the tenanted shop address. Notice of this petition was sent to the respondent at both the addresses. The registered covers sent at both the addresses came back with a report that the premises were lying locked since long. Ordinary process was also received back with the noting of the Process Server that the premises were locked. Thereafter, the Trial Court on an application under Order V Rule 20 of CPC made by the petitioner, allowed substituted service of respondent by way of publication of notice. Notice of eviction petition was thus served through publication on the respondent