The provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to proceedings before the Rent Controller, and therefore, an application to set aside an ex parte order is not barred by limitation.

1. Inderjit Pal has filed this revision under Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called `the Act) against the order dated December 11, 1984, of the learned Rent Controller, Ambala whereby he had allowed an application filed by Shankar, respondent, to set aside an ex parte ejectment order November 18, 1981 passed against Shankar.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Inderjit Pal petitioner has filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for the ejectment of Shankar, respondent, from the premises, in dispute. The process-server submitted a report that Shankar had been personally served. However, Shankar did not appear in Court. Ex parte proceedings were taken and orders of his eviction were passed on November 18, 1981, ex parte. In execution of these orders Shankar was dispossessed on May 10, 1982. Shankar filed an application for setting aside the ex parte orders of ejectment on June 15, 1982. This application was resisted by the present petitioner. He pleaded that Shankar has been personally served and did not attend the court intentionally. Shanker came to know about the ex parte orders at least on the day when he was ejected on May 10, 1982. Under Article 123 of the Limitation Act, an application for setting aside the ex parte order could be made within 30 days of the impugned order or knowledge thereof whichever was latter.

3. The learned Rent Controller after examining the pleadings and the evidence on the file came to the conclusion that there was no succidient evidence to hold that Shankar had been personally served. The process server did not get his endorsement on the summons attested from any witness. He did not know Shankar personally and the latter had been identified by some neighbour. That neighbour had not been produced. It could not be said with certainty that the man who had been allegedly served was in fact Shankar. Shankar had denied his signatures on the summons. The application was held to be within time. The plea of limitation was rejected and it was held that it cannot be said that the application was time barred.

4. It has been vigorously argued by Mr. S.K. Goyal the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the process-server had established that Shankar, the tenant, had been validly served. The mere absence of attestation of the report regarding service by any witness does not render the service invalid. He also contended that the application for setting aside the ex parte orders had been filed beyond 30 days of the knowledge and as such it was liable to be dismissed as time barred. It is the admitted case that the process-server did not know Shankar, respondent. The process-server has stated that Shankar was identified by a neighbour. The process-sever did not get the report of service attested by that neighbour. That neighbour has not been produced. The process-server has not identified Shankar in Court. So, at best the evidence on the file establishes that the process-server took the summons to the demised premises. On the identification of a neighbour he served summons on one person who accepted the same and signed a copy thereof in token of his service. Shankar appeared in the witness box and categorically denied that the signatures on the summons are not his. No effect (effort) was made before the learned Rent Controller to establish that the signatures on the summons were of Shankar. Neither any witnesses was produced to establish this fact nor any expert evidence was led to establish that the disputed signatures were of Shankar. An application has been filed in this Court for getting the signatures of the respondent, compared with signatures on the summons. It has not, however, been cogently explained as to why such an application has not been filed before the Rent Controller. By separate order, I had rejected that application. In the absence of any acceptable evidence to the contrary the learned Rent Controller was justified