Quadri, J.-- Leave is granted.

In this appeal, from the judgment and Order of the High Court of Delhi in C.R. No. 138 of 2001 dated October 15,2001, the Short point that arises for consideration is whether the High Court committed jurisdictional error in declining to set aside the ex parte decree on the application of the appellant under Rule 4 of Order 37, on the ground that he failed to disclose facts sufficient to entitle him to defend the suit.

The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal maybe noted here.

The appellant-tenant had taken on rent residential flat No. C 470, Sarita Vihar, ground floor, New Delhi - 110004, from the respondent landlord for a period of nine months under an agreement of lease reduced to writing on November 26, 1993. After the expiry of the term of tenancy she continued to occupy the said premises as tenant till January 11, 1997. Alleging that the appellant did not pay the electricity and water consumption charges for the period starting from November 26, 1993 to January 11, 1997, the respondent filed suit No. 597 of 1997 in the Court of senior civil judge, Delhi, under Order 37 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), for recovery of Rs. 33,661 on the ground that on April 21, 1999 summons for judgment was sent by registered post A.D. to the appellant pursuant to the order of the Court dated April 16, 1999 the Court drew inference of deemed service on him, proceeded with the case and decreed the suit ex-parte on August 12, 1999. The appellant, however, filed application under Rule 4 of Order 37 CPC in the trial Court to set aside the ex-parte decree. On January 6, 2001, the application was dismissed as no special circumstances were stated in the petition both in regard to there being illegality in deeming service of summons for judgr.1cnt on the appellant as well facts sufficient to entitle him to defend the suit. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, the appellant filed revision C.R. No. 138 of 2001 in the High Court, which was also dismissed on October 15,2001. That order of the High Court is assailed in appeal before us:

Mr. A Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appel1ant, strenuously contended that there was no proof or record to show that any notice by registered post with acknowlegment due was issued to the appellant by the respondent who had taken the notice from the Court but did not file any proof of issuing the notice to the appellant, therefore, there was special reason for the appellant not to appear in response to the summons for judgment. He argued that sufficient amount was deposited with the respondent as advance and that Order 37 CPC was not applicable to the facts of the case, therefore, the appellant had good defence to the suit. The trial Court as well as the High Court, submitted Mr. Sharan, erred in dismissing the application under Rule 4 of Order 37 CPC.

The respondent appeared in-person and argued his case with precision and perfection. He submitted that summons for judgment was issued on April 21 , 1999 and that the Court had rightly drawn presumption of service on the appellant; that nowhere in her application had the appellant stated anything about her defence to the suit and therefore the order under challenge was rightly passed by the Courts below.

To appreciate the contentions of the parties it would be useful to refer to Rule 4 of Order 37 CPC which is in the following terms:

"Order XXXVII - Summary Procedure

(1) *** ****

(2) *** ****

(3) *** ****

(4) Power to set aside decree - After decree the Court may, under special circumstances, set aside the decree, and if necessary stay or set aside execution, and may give leave to the defendant to appear to the summons and to defend the suit, if it seems reasonable to the Court so to do, and on such terms as the Court thinks fit." A careful reading of Rule 4 shows that it empowers, under special circumstances, the Court which passed an ex parte decree