Proper service of summons and a copy of the ejectment petition is essential for eviction proceedings, and the first date of hearing should be considered the date when the ex parte proceedings are set aside.

G.C.Mital, J.

1. Smt. Ganga Devi filed a joint petition for eviction under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, against her tenants Amrik Singh and Trilok Singh, sons of Satwant Singh, from shop No. 250. In those proceedings Trilok Singh tenant was proceeded ex-parte. On 10.6.1982, when the ejectment case was fixed for final arguments, Trilok Singh tenant filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings on the ground that he was not served and the report of service, if any, was wrong and since there was no service in accordance with law, ex-parte proceedings deserve to be set aside. That application was opposed by the landlord. By order dated 9.8.1982, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application as having been filed beyond the period of limitation of 30 days although it came to the conclusion that he was not properly served because according to the report of the Process Server dated 14.7.1981, the tenants refused service of notices for want of copies of the ejectment petition. It also concluded that the applicant had the knowledge of the ejectment proceedings from the very beginning but did not appear in Court intentionally to delay the proceedings. Trilok Singh tenant has come to this Court in this revision petition.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at great length, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to succeed. It has been held by this Court repeatedly that in ejectment cases there is due service of the tenant only when he is served with summons of the Court along with a copy of the ejectment petition and if the copy of the ejectment petition is not supplied along with the summons, it is no service in the eye of law. Reference may be made to Jagat Ram v. Shanti Sarup, 1965 P.L.R. 45 (D.B.), Jagan Nath and another v. Tek Chand and another, 1974 P.L.R. 339, and Piare Lal v. Kehru Ram, 1982 Cur. L.J. 411. Even Rule 7 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1976, provides that a copy of the ejectment petition has to be served with the summons. This Rules is in consonance with this Courts judgment which was rendered prior to the coming into force of the Rules.

3. It is also firmly settled in this Court that first date of hearing in those ejectment cases, where ex parte proceedings/orders are passed, is the date when the ex parte proceedings/orders are set aside. See Shri Vinod Kumar v. Harbans Singh Azad, 1977(1) R.C.J. 236 (Full Bench of Five Judges).

4. Keeping the aforesaid law laid down by this Court in view, I proceed to examine the facts of the present case. On 10.6.1981, an ejectment petition was filed against two brothers, who are alleged to be tenants of the shop in dispute. On 14.7.1981, the process server presented summons to them which they refused to accept. The report of the process server shows that both the tenants refused the service for want of copies of ejectment petition which were not annexed with the summons. The first date of hearing was 5.8.1981. On that date, Amrik Singh tenant appeared but Trilok Singh tenant did not appear and he was ordered to be proceeded ex parte. Thereafter, the case concluded on the contest between the landlord and Amrik Singh tenant and when the case was posted for arguments Tirlok Singh tenant filed an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. As found by the Court below, Tirlok Singh tenant was not served with a copy of the ejectment petition. It is true that copy of the ejectment petition was not supplied to the other tenant also but since he appeared in Court and took part in the proceedings without raising any objection, the matter no longer subsit for consideration. However, Tirlok Singh has his independent right to contest the petition in accordance with law. Since he was not supplied with any copy of the ejectment petition, therefore, he was well within his rights to refuse the summons and as ruled by this Court, it would be no servi