Due service of summons in a rent petition under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, does not require the copy of the rent petition to be attached with the summons, and the limitation period for filing a petition under Order 9 Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside an ex parte ejectment order is 30 days from the date of the order.

Sarojnei Saksena, J.

1. Tenant has filed this revision against the Rent Controllers order dated 22.1.1996, whereby his petition filed under Order 9 Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code is dismissed.

2. Facts of the case of are that the petitioner-respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the `Act) for petitioner-tenants ejectment in the Court of Rent Controller. Summons were sent to the petitioner tenant on various occasions. On 16.7.1990 the Rent Controller proceeded ex parte against the petitioner-tenant and after recording respondent-landlords evidence passed an ejectment order on 12.4.1991.

3. Petitioner-tenant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. On 28.3.1994 a bailiff of the Court came to the demised premises for delivery of possession in execution of warrant of possession issued by the Court, then only the tenant-petitioner came to know that the ejectment order has been passed against him. On 29.3.1994 he got the file inspected by his counsel and on 2.4.1994 he filed the said petition alleging that he was never served when the rent petition was pending in the Court of Rent Controller. He came to know about the ejectment order only on 28.3.1994. Hence, he prayed that the ex parte ejectment order passed on 12.4.1991 be set aside.

4. On being noticed, landlord-respondent filed the reply denying all the allegations made therein.

5. Parties adduced evidence. On minutetly scanning the evidence on record, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner-tenant was duly served when the ejectment petition was pending. He deliberately did not appear in the case and allowed it to proceed ex parte as he wanted to delay the proceedings. He was having knowledge that ex parte ejectment order has been passed against him on 12.4.1991. Despite that knowledge, he filed the petition under consideration on 2.4.1994 which is barred by limitation. Hence, on both the counts, the petition was dismissed.

6. Petitioner-tenants learned counsel vehemently argued that from lower Courts record, it is evident that many a time, the Rent Controller ordered the landlord-respondent to deposit registered cover, but he declined to do so. Raj Narain RW-1 has proved the service effected on the petitioner- tenant, on 20.11.1989, but he has categorically admitted that when he served the summons, he was not having copy of the rent petition. Thus, relying on Jagat Ram Hamir Chand v. Shanti Sarup, AIR 1965 Punjab 175 and Babu Ram Bhatnagar v. Satish Kumar Rawal, 1991(2) PLR 234, he contended that even if it is to be believed that on 20.11.1989 he was served through summons which were served through Raj Narain, it will not amount to "due service" as copy of the ejectment petition was not annexed with the summons. Raj Narain was examined by the petitioner-tenant. He admitted that he does not know the tenant personally and he did not get him identified through anybody when service was effected in the Court premises. He further contends that the second service of summons was effected on 5.2.1990 by Bodh Raj Process-Server. His report is dated 5.2.1990. In this report also, he has not mentioned as to who identified the tenant and it is not attested by any witness. Thus, according to him, even on the basis of these reports, it cannot be said that on 20.11.1989 and 5.2.1990, tenant-petitioner was duly served. The Rent Controller also ordered that service be effected through munadi which was effected on 18.5.1990 by Kirpal Singh Process-Server. From his report also, it is evident that copy of rent petition was not attached with the summons. Report is not attested by any witness. Kirpal Singh was not examined by the landlord. Hence, even this service cannot be held to be "due service" in the eye of law.

7. His another contention is that the suit premises has a Municipal Number, but in the title of rent petition, Municipal Number of the demised premises was