JAYANT NATH, J.

1. Present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to impugn the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as ‘the RCT’).

2. By the impugned order, the RCT set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller (in short ‘the ARC’) whereby the ARC had dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and upheld that the service has been duly affected on the respondent while passing the ex-parte eviction order dated 15.10.2005.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent is a tenant in respect of the shop bearing No.1 in property No.RZ-184, Khasra No.487/3, Peera Garhi, New Delhi under one Sh.Rai Singh. After the demise of Sh.Rai Singh, through his LRs one Sh.Dev Bhushan who is the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner ( petitioner being the L.R of Shri Dev Bhushan who died on 16.5.2010) purchased the said property vide Sale Deed dated 03.12.2001. Sh.Dev Bhushan being aggrieved by the acts of the respondent in not making payment of the rent, after service of a legal notice, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRC Act’). Three attempts were made to serve the respondent. On each occasion, the respondent is said to have refused the summons. The respondent was proceeded ex-parte. On 06.07.2005, the ARC granted one month time to the respondent to pay the arrears of rent by giving the benefit under Section 14(2) of the DRC Act. Again a process server is said to have gone to the premises to serve the court notice on the respondent and again the respondent refused to accept the said summons. Thereafter, the ARC passed an ex-parte eviction order dated 15.10.2005.

4. Thereafter, it is urged that the bailiff appointed by the court went to the premises and handed over the possession of the premises to the petitioner on 14.12.2005. The respondent is said to have filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the eviction order dated 15.10.2005. The ARC dismissed the said application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC vide its order dated 05.05.2012. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the RCT. The RCT vide its judgment dated 11.10.2012 has allowed the appeal of the respondent and has set aside the ex-parte eviction order dated 15.10.2005.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to argue that the sale deed dated 03.12.2001 that was executed by LRs of late Sh.Rai Singh in favour of Sh.Dev Bhushan describes the property with address No.RZ-184, Village Peera Garhi, Rohtak Road, Delhi. It is urged that in the eviction petition, the address of the property has been rightly described as above and the impugned order wrongly holds that the address RZ-184 cannot be termed the appropriate address of the property and hence comes to the conclusion that the respondent has not been served properly/correctly.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent has reiterated that no summons were sent by registered AD to the respondent which was mandatory. He also relies upon the suit filed for specific performance by the respondent where also he submits that the correct address has been shown, namely, Khasra No.487/3, Peera Garhi Chowk, Delhi.

7. There is some other litigation going on between the parties which is not very material for adjudication of the present petition. The dispute between the parties in this case is as to whether the respondent was duly served in the eviction petition.

8. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the appellate court has noted the reports of the process server on the various dates when attempts were made to serve the respondent. Notice for the first time was directed to be sent on filing PF (process fees) and RC (registered cover) for 19.01.2005. The notice sent by ordinary process was received back with the report that one person met the process server who refused to receive the notice or tell his name. The repor