PANDIT KARTAR CHAND Vs. HIRALAL SHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point I have been called upon to decide in this revisional application under section 115 of the Procedure Code (5 of 1908) at the instance of a tenant whose defence against delivery of possession has been struck out under section 17, sub-section 3, of the premises Tenancy Act (12 of 1956) is : the writ of summons having been served upon him, not personally, but by the method known as substituted service under order 5, rule 20, of the Code, are the penal provisions of section 17 of the Premises Tenancy Act attracted, -calling upon him to deposit or pay rent within one month of the service of the writ of summons upon him ?

(2.) MR. Mukul Prokash Banerjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, contends they are not. By order 20, sub-rule 2, of the Code it is prescribed : "service substituted by order of the Court shall be as effectual as if it had been made on the defendant personally. "

(3.) MR. Banerjee does not pass it by. He submits that this "deeming" provision holds good only for the purpose of Order 9, rule 6, sub-rule 1, clause (a), by which it is provided that where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not, when the suit is called on for hearing, then if it is proved that the summons was duly served, the court may proceed ex parte. Such a deeming" provision, Mr. Banerjee concludes, has little to do with section 17 of the Premises Tenancy Act, a penal section which can only be invoked if the tenant has the writ of summons served upon him personally.