S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. This judgment is upon a reference of two questions by a learned single judge of this court, in her order dated 12.05.2015, in the course of a rent control Revision petition. The reference was necessitated in view of conflict of opinions discerned in judgments of this court (all delivered by learned single judges). The questions referred are:

“1. Whether the tenant is required to be served by both the modes as prescribed under Section 25B DRC Act or even service by one mode is sufficient service as per the requirement of the provision?

2. In case the tenant is served by both the modes whether the period of15 days for filing the leave to defend has to be counted from the first service or the second service?”

2. The facts necessary to answer the reference made to this Division bench are that the petitioner applied for “leave to defend” to the Additional Rent Controller (hereafter “ARC”), which was dismissed as barred by limitation on 14.01.2013. His review petition was dismissed by an order dated 20.05.2013. The ARC found that the notice of the eviction petition was served by ordinary process on 28.11.2012 and by registered post on 8.12.2012 on the petiti