MAHMOOD KHAN NOOR KHAN Vs. GOVARDHAN SHANKAR PARDESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question for my consideration in this Civil Revision Application is whether the revision petitioner, who was the defendant before the Rent Controller, was served with the summons of this proceeding and it arises on the following manner.

(2.) In the ejectment proceedings started before the Additional Rent Controller, Aurangabad, by the present respondent, the notice was sent to the present petitioner. The notice was returned by the peon of the office of the Rent Controller with the following remark : "The person mentioned refused to accept summons. When had gone to serve the summons, house owner was with me. S. Krim 4-10-76" Then there are two other signatures and no reference whatsoever is made by the peon as to who these persons were and for what purpose these signatures were obtained by him below his endorsement. However, the learned Additionl Rent Controller held that there was a proper service and he proceeded to hear the matter ex parte and decided it exparte holding that the petitioner- tenant was a defaulter and that the respondent-landlord required the tenanted premises for his bona fide personal requirements. This order was passed on 6th November 1978. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the present revision petitioner carried an appeal to the District Court at Aurangabad and before the learned District Judge also it was contended that the present revision petitioner was not served with the summons. The learned Judge negatived this contention and he concurred with the findings of the Additional Rent Controller on the other points and he dismissed the appeal and directed the revision petitioner to hand over vacant possession within one month. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant has come to this Court by way of this Civil Revision Application.

(3.) It is not disputed that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are required to be followed in the matter of service of summons or notice to the opposite party in such cases. Shri S. C. Bora, appearing for the revision petitioner, urged before him that the provisions of O. V, R. 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been followed in the instant case and according to Shri Bora, the provisions mentioned in O. V, R. 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure are mandatory provisions. Shri Bora, therefore, urged that it must be held in this case that there was no service of notice on the revision petitioner and as such the decision of the Rent Controller is a nullity. As against this, Shri J. V. Sawaat, appearing on behalf of the Respondent, eontended that the provisions of O. V. R. 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not strictly apply to the facts of this case. For this purpose Shri Sawant invited my attention to O. V. R. 16 the Code of Civil Procedure, which runs as follows :