Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the order dated 6.9.2008 of the Rent Controller, whereby his application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte eviction order dated 10.5.2003 was dismissed and further the order dated 9.2.2011 of the Appellate Authority dismissing his appeal against the aforesaid order.

2. Briefly stated that respondent filed an ejectment petition against the petitioner which was allowed ex parte vide order dated 10.5.2003 of the Rent Controller, Moga. The petitioner filed an application on 2.9.2003 for setting aside the aforesaid ex parte eviction order dated 10.5.2003 stating that he had no knowledge regarding the aforesaid ejectment petition as the respondent in collusion with Process Server had obtained the false report and had managed to get ex parte eviction order against him. It was specifically stated that no service was effected upon him in the said ejectment petition as he was already contesting another ejectment petition filed against him by the respondent earlier to the said petition and there was no reason that petitioner will not appear in the instant ejectment petition after notice. Thus, it was necessary to set aside the aforesaid ex parte order of eviction dated 10.5.2003 passed against him.

3. The said application was contested by the respondent on the ground of limitation and also on merits. It was stated by the respondent-landlord that petitioner was served in the eviction petition for 27.8.2001 but despite his personal service he deliberately absented himself and was thus, proceeded against ex parte. The allegations of collusion with the Process Server were denied and it was further stated that the application has been filed only to obstruct the execution proceedings resulting from the aforesaid eviction order dated 10.5.2003 and therefore, the application was liable to be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

“1. Whether there is a reasonable cause for setting aside the ex parte proceedings initiated against applicant Manjeet Singh? OPA

2. Whether the application is tune barred? OPR

3. Relief.”

5. While dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, the Rent Controller found as under:

“Although, learned counsel for applicant Manjit Singh has argued that the service effected upon applicant Manjit Singh is not a valid service in the eyes of law as per provision of Order 5, Rule 2 of the CPC as copy of the eviction petition was not delivered to applicant Manjit Singh, but applicant Manjit Singh can only plead his case as per his application. It is not the plea of the applicant Manjit Singh that summons served upon applicant Manjit Singh were without copy of the eviction petition. It is pleaded by applicant Manjit Singh that false report was procured by respondent Yashwant Rai and managed to get ex parte eviction order against him. Therefore, this argument of learned counsel for applicant Manjit Singh that no service under Order 5, Rule 2 of the CPC was effected upon applicant Manjit Singh is not helpful to the applicant. Even during the cross-examination of RW.2 Gurcharan Singh, Process Server, no question or suggestion was put to him by learned counsel for applicant Manjit Singh that he served the summons to Manjit Singh without copy of the eviction petition. It further goes against applicant Manjit Singh. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for applicant Manjit Singh, supra, are not applicable in this case. Moreover, authority relied upon by learned counsel for respondent, Yashwant Rai, supra, that noncompliance of Order 5, Rule 2 of the Code is an irregularity and not an illegality and ex parte decree is not liable to be set aside on this ground, is fully applicable in this case. Therefore, applicant Manjit Singh was duly served in the eviction petition for 27.8.2001, but despite service he did not appear in the court and was proceeded a