The judgment emphasizes the statutory obligations of tenants under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, and the Court's discretionary jurisdiction to strike out the defense against eviction for non-compliance with the Act's provisions.

S.P. Srivastava, J.

1. The tenants/judgment-debtors/applicants who had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, seeking setting aside of the ex parte decree passed against them for their eviction from the premises in dispute under their tenancy and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation, feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the said application by the Trial Court which order stands affirmed in appeal, they have now approached this Court by means of the present revision under Section 115, CPC, seeking redress and praying for the setting aside of both the orders.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the tenants/judgment-debtors/ applicants as well as the learned counsel representing the landlord/decree-holder/respondent and have carefully perused the record relating to the proceedings of the original suit as well as the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, giving rise to this revision which had been summoned pursuant to the order passed by this Court.

3. The facts in brief shorn of details and which are necessary for the disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass: The suit giving rise to this revision had been filed on 30-9-1985. The plaintiff had alleged that the accommodation in dispute had been let out to Rasal Singh, after whose death, the tenancy rights had devolved upon Basant Singh, his son and Hari Singh, his nephew. The premises in dispute had been let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 3/-. The suit had been filed on the grounds envisaged under Section 12 (1) (a) and (e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. A composite notice terminating the tenancy and demanding the arrears of rent was claimed (o have been served on 30-5-1983. Arrears of rent for the past 3 years was claimed to have been not paid. The suit had been filed for the recovery of the rent due for the last 3 years and for the payment of rent, damages for use and occupation at the same rate pendente lite in future.

4. On 5-10-1985, the Trial Court had passed an order directing for the issue of summons requiring the plaintiff to deposit the requisite process fee within 3 days.

5. The office, however, reported on 9-5-1985, that the plaintiff had not deposited the process fee with the result that the summons could not be issued. On 2-4-1986, the Trial Court had passed an order that the summons be issued to the defendants "Bilawar Talvana" and registered post. The expression "Bilawar Talvana" as pointed out by the counsel for the parties refers to the issuance of summons without asking for a fresh process fee.

6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, notices per registered post were issued on 24-4-1986. The requisite fee in this regard was paid by the plaintiff on 15-4-1986. The notices per registered post were issued to Basant Singh and Hari Singh. The office note indicates that two registered covers had been sent vide postal receipt Nos. 875 and 876 dated 24-4-1986.

7. The registered letter addressed to Hari Singh was returned back undelivered with an endorsement of the postman that the recourse to intimation distribution was taken for delivery of the aforesaid letter. There is an endorsement to the effect 'NLC' whereafter it had been returned to the sender.

8. The other registered letter which had been sent to Basant Singh was not returned to the sender.

9. The suit was taken up by the Trial Court on 30-4-1986. By that date, none of the registered letters had been received back. The Trial Court, therefore, passed an order to await the return of the letters and posted the case for 30-6-1986. On that date, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 5 Rule 20, CPC, praying that the permission be granted to effect the substituted service on the defendants by publication of the summons in the news paper. The Trial Court observed in its order passed on that date, that from a perusal of the record it appears that the notices/summons sent to the defendants by normal mode and by registered post had not been returned