JUGAL KISHORE Vs. SHAM SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents-landlords filed an ejectment application against petitioner-tenant on 28.2.1985 on the ground of non-payment of rent and the tenant having ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months. Tenants was ordered to be served for 27.3.1985. Process server made a report dated 26.3.1985 to the effect that the shop is lying closed. This report is attested by none else but the landlords. When the case was taken up on 27.3.1985, learned Rent Controller ordered that the tenant be served again for 27.4.1985. Process server again made a report dated 25.4.1985 that the shop is lying closed. This report is again attested by the landlord. On 27.4.1985, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 2.5.1985. On 2.5.1985, the tenant was ordered to be served by Munandi and the case was adjourned to 31.5.1985. On 31.5.1985, process-server made a report that Munadi was effected in the vicinity of the area of the shop. This report is not attested by any body On receipt of this report of the process-server, learned Rent Controller passed an ex parte proceedings against the tenant and the case was adjourned to 2.8.1985 for ex parte evidence of the landlords. On 2.8.1985, after recording the ex parte evidence of the landlords, ex parte order of ejectment was passed against the tenant. Tenant, on coming to know about the ex parte ejectment order, immediately filed an application dated 27.8.1985 for setting aside ex parte ejectment order passed against him. He inter alia pleaded in the application that no service was effected on him and the reports of the process server are wrong and he never ceased to occupy the premises and the shop never remained closed However, the learned Rent Controller found that: the application was filed within the period of limitation but believing the report of the process server, dismissed the same. Tenant has impugned the said order in this civil revision.

(2.) After, hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Indisputably, reports of the process-server dated 26.3.1985 and 25.4.1985 are attested only by the landlords and thus no reliance can be placed on these reports. So far as the report dated 31.5.1985 for effecting service by beat of drum is concerned, it is not believable in ordinary course of conduct that while the service was being effected by beat of drum in the market, the process server was not able to get signatures of even a single person to attest his report. No witness has been examined from the locality that the service was effected by beat of drum.

(3.) The report of the process server also shows that the process server never took the copy of the plaint alongwith the summons when he went to effect service of tenant by beat of drum. Service without concise statement of plaint or copy of plaint cannot be treated as merely an irregularity in service. It will amount to no service at all muchless due service. This precise matter was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babu Ram Bhatnagar v. Satish Kumar Rawal, 1992 1 RRR 35wherein it was held as under :