JUDGMENT

ORDER

Alok Sharma, J. - The Rent Tribunal Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur (hereinafter ''the Tribunal'') issued a certificate of possession for the respondent landlord (hereinafter ''the landlord'') under its ex-parte judgment dated 13-10-2008 and a corresponding order of eviction against the petitioner-tenant (hereinafter ''the tenant'') finding a case of default under Section 9(a) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter ''the Act of 2001'') made out. The tenant appealed under Section 19 of the Act of 2001. It was dismissed on 7-11-2014. Almost inevitably this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying that both the judgment of the Tribunal and affirming one of the Appellate Tribunal be quashed and set aside.

2. Relevant facts are that on 16-7-2007 the landlord filed an application under Sections 6 and 9 of the Act of 2001 before the Tribunal inter alia praying for revision of rent as also direction for eviction of the tenant on the ground of default. His case was that the tenant commencing November, 1999 was in arrears of rent. In the circumstance registered notice (AD) dated 28-6-2003 under the hand of the landlord''s counsel, for payment of arrears of rent but confined for reason of limitation for the period of three years commencing June 2001 to May, 2004 aggregating to Rs. 4140/- was sent requiring the tenant to deposit arrears of rent in the landlord''s account disclosed therein. The registered AD notice was however returned with the postman''s endorsement that despite repeated visits to the address none was found in the tenanted premises. A legal notice for payment of arrears Under Postal Certificate (UPC) was also sent on 26-8-2003, but not returned undelivered. The tenant continued to remain in arrears of rent. He was thus a defaulter on payment of rent within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act of 2001 and hence liable to be evicted and the landlord put in possession of the tenanted premises.

3. On notice on the eviction petition despite service none appeared on behalf of the tenant. Proceedings were thereupon taken ex-parte against the tenant on or about 2911-2007. The landlord Devendar Kumar Sharma examined himself in support of the eviction petition, and exhibited nine documents. On the uncontroverted evidence of the landlord, with tenant being ex-parte, the rent of the tenanted premises was revised under Section 6 of the Act of 2001 to Rs. 157/- effective 1-4-2003. Further, the Tribunal found that the tenant was in default on payment of rent for over a period of four months and the said arrears of rent had not been paid within 30 days of the deemed service of the registered AD notice dated 28-6-2003 under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 disclosing the bank account of the landlord. In the circumstances, the tenant was held by the Tribunal''s judgment dated 13-10-2008 to be a defaulter on payment of due rent and hence liable to be evicted and the landlord to be put in possession.

4. Aggrieved the tenant appealed before the Appellate Tribunal. His case in the appeal as evident from the memorandum of appeal was quite convoluted asserting on the one hand that he had no knowledge of the filing of the eviction petition before the Tribunal, and yet on the other in para 8 of his appeal asserting that summons on the eviction petition were not accompanied with the petition and documents in support thereof, entailing the service to be no service in the eye of law. The memorandum of appeal further stated that subsequent to the receipt of summons, the tenant approached the landlord who assured him not to worry about the summons on the eviction petition based on default in view of the fact that the amount of Rs. 4140/- claimed as due rent for the period June, 2001 to May, 2004 would be adjusted against a sum of Rs. 4500/- allegedly due from the landlord to the tenant for having constructed, on the landlord''s directions, a boundary wall around the tenanted premises. It