Refusal to take delivery of the notice by registered post does not constitute due service for proceeding ex-parte.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Rent Controller, Kaithal, dated March 7, 1981, whereby his applications for setting aside the ex parte proceedings taken against him, were dismissed.

2. The landlord respondent filed an application for ejectment of the tenant-petitioner on May 24, 1978. Notice of that application was sent by registered post, to the tenant for August 22, 1978. It was reported that the tenant had refused to accept the service. There, it was ordered that the ex-parte proceedings be taken against him. Thereafter the case was fixed for exparte evidence of the landlord, but before could conclude his evidence, the tenant made an application on April 21, 1979 and another application on May 10, 1979, for setting aside the exparte proceedings ordered against him. Those applications were contested on behalf of the landlord. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues

1. Whether the applicant has not been ever served in this case ?

2. Whether the applicant had sufficient grounds for not appearing on May 7, 1979 ?

3.Relief.

Since the finding on issue No. 1 was against the tenant, his applications were dismissed by the impugned order.

3 The learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even if it be assumed that the report of the refusal on the registered envelope was factually correct, as no copy of the eviction application was sent along with the summons therein, in view of the judgment of this Court reported in Jagan Nath and another v. Tek Chand and another 1974 Punjab Law Reporter 339, the refusal to take delivery of the notice by registered post could not be deemed to be due service so as to proceed ex-parte against him. Since no finding was given to this effect by the learned Rent Controller, the record of the case was sent for on the last date of the hearing. The registered envelope on which the report of refusal was made, was opened today in Court, in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties. Therein, there was no copy of the ejectment application sent alongwith the summons. That being the position, the learned counsel for the respondent was unable to support the impugned order of the Rent Controller.

4. For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated March 7, 1981, of the Rent Controller, Kaithal is set aside and the case is remanded to him with the directions to decide the applications for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings filed by the tenant keeping in view the observations made above. The parties through their counsel, have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller on February 2, 1982, No costs. The record of the case be sent back forthwith.