Service of notice of appeal through publication in newspaper not contemplated by Rules.

1. The unsuccessful tenant is the revision petitioner before this Court and she has filed the revision aggrieved against the order of dismissal dated 30.11.1998 in M.P. No. 43 of 1998 in R.C.A. No. 1513 of 1996 on the file of VII Small Causes Court, Madras.

2. The facts in brief is as follows:The respondent/landlord filed petitions under Sec.10(3) (a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Act as R.C.O.P. No. 1256 of 1995 on the ground of wilful default and R.C.O.P. No. 1257 of 1995 on the ground of own occupation. The learned Rent Controller dismissed both applications on merits on 96. The Court Officer came to the residence of the petitioner and informed on 112. 1997 that E.P. No. 506 of 1997 for execution of the eviction order in the rent control petition had been filed. She came to know that E.P. No. 506 of 1997 was posted for appearance on 112. 1997 and on enquiry through counsel, she came to know that the respondent preferred an appeal and the appeal was allowed ex parte. She never received any notice and unless the exparte order is set aside, she would be put to much loss and hardship. She did not receive any notice in the appeal. Hence, she filed M.P. No. 43 of 1998 to set aside the ex parte order passed in R.C.A. No. 1513 of 1996, dated 19. 1997.

3. The respondent filed counter stating that notice was sent to the same address given in the rent control petition. No petition to condone the delay has been filed by the petitioner. Now, it is not open to the petitioner to state that because of the wrong address, notice was not served. To the same address only, the notice in execution petition was also sent and it has been duly served. The appeal was also allowed on merit and the petitioner cannot now seek to set aside the same and the remedy is only by way of revision. There is no merit and the petition lacks in bona fide.

4. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority after hearing both sides, dismissed the application and aggrieved against this, the revision petitioner/tenant has come forward with the revision.

5. The point for consideration is whether the order passed by the appellate authority is proper and correct?

6. Point: It is admitted that the respondent/landlord filed two rent control petition against the petitioner for eviction and both petitions were dismissed on 10. 1996 on merit. It is also stated that the petitioner has already filed caveat also. However it may be, the learned counsel for petitioner stated that no notice was received relating to the appeal said to have been filed by the respondent and only when the court officer came and informed about E.P. No. 506 of 1997, on verification they came to know that notice was not served on petitioner. But, however, the appeal was allowed ex parte and in the circumstance, an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to contest the appeal, as otherwise the tenant would be put to much loss and hardship.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that notice was sent to the same address to which the notice in rent control petition was also sent. However, the notice has been returned and subsequently, the notice was sent by registered post and the same was also returned unserved. Thereupon, publication was ordered in a vernacular paper and thereafter only, the petitioner was set ex parte and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent, on merit the appeal was allowed. In the circumstances, the only course open to the petitioner is to file a revision aggrieved against the order as if it was passed ex parte. But, on the other hand, since the order was passed on merit, it cannot be set aside by the same appellate authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the earlier notice in rent control petition was, no doubt, served, but the court officer was also brought by the respondent and on identity, the notice was served. Similarly, no court officer came