P.S.PATWALIA, J. - (1.)THE present revision petition has been filed challenging orders dated 4.9.2004 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner-tenant for leave to defend an application filed under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as, 'the Act') as also order passed on the application under Section 13-A of the Act ordering ejectment of the petitioner-tenant.
(2.)THE brief facts of the case are that the landlord, respondent in this revision petition, filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act seeking ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the demised premises on 18.3.2002. Notice of the said application was issued for 2.5.2002. According to the report submitted regarding service on 10.4.2002 service was effected by affixation on that date. However, the Rent Controller ordered fresh service for 1.6.2002. According to the report submitted to the Rent Controller, the petitioner-tenant refused to accept service on 21.5.2002. Thereafter the Rent Controller directed service by munadi and fixed the date of hearing as 9.8.2002. Munadi was effected on 4.7.2002. An application for leave to defend was filed on 9.8.2002 by the petitioner-tenant which was allowed by the Rent Controller on 29.4.2003. Leave to defend was granted by the Rent Controller by observing that the objection with regard to maintainability of the application for leave to defend and the objection with regard to limitation would be decided afterwards. Against this order, the landlord filed Civil Revision No. 2565 of 2003 in this Court. The revision petition was allowed. Order of the Rent Controller dated 29.4.2003 was set aside and the Rent Controller was directed to decide the application for leave to defend afresh.
It is in the light of the aforesaid direction that the Rent Controller has again considered the matter. The application for leave to defend was rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond a period of 15 days prescribed under Section 18-A of the Act. Thereafter the application under Section 13-A of the Act filed by the landlord was taken up for consideration on the same day. The same was allowed and the petitioner-tenant was directed to hand over vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord within a period of one month from the date of order dated 4.9.2004. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the aforementioned two orders of the Rent Controller. Before considering the merits of the controversy, it would be appropriate to reproduce the orders made by the Rent Controller on 18.3.2002, 2.5.2002, 1.6.2002 and 9.8.2002 on an application filed by the landlord for vacation of ex parte stay order granted by this Court which are as hereunder :-

"Present : Counsel for the applicant. Petition be registered. Notice to the respondent be issued for 2.5.2002 on filing PF. Sd/- RC 18.3.2002 Present : Counsel for the applicant. Notice against the respondent not received. Let notice to the respondent be again issued for 1.6.2002. Sd/- RC 2.5.2002. Present : Counsel for the applicant. Respondent has refused to accept the service. I am satisfied that respondent cannot be served through ordinary manner. Let respondent be serviced high substituted service by way of beat of drum and affixation for 9.8.2002 on filing of PF and Munadi charges. Sd/- RC 1.6.2002. Present : Counsel for the applicant. Respondent appeared through Sh. Mayank Joshi, Advocate and filed an application for permission to leave to defend the application filed by the applicant. Application is supported by an affidavit. Copy has been supplied for filing its reply and consideration. To come up on 21.8.2002. Sd/- RC 9.8.2002."
The report of Process Server dated 10.4.2002 when summons were sent for 2.5.2002 as translated and reproduced in the application filed by the landlord for vacation of ex parte order reads as under :-
"Sir, It is submitted that I went to the spot repeatedly and made enquiries about Harbans Singh son of Atma Singh. On repeated visits, after making enquiries about the date of hearing on the summons, he disappears. One copy of summon alongwith a copy has been affixed at his house but neighbours are not prepared to witness the same. Sd/- Harbans Singh, 10.4.02."
Similarly the report dated 21.5.2002 on summons sent for 1.6.2002 made by the Process Server when translated into English reads as hereunder :-
"Sir, It is submitted that after reaching House No. 4696, Guru Nanak Wara, P.O. Khalsra College, Harbans Singh son of Atma Singh was asked to receive the summons but Harbans Singh kept the summons and copy but refused to give receipt receiving the summons. Report is submitted. Sd/- Hari Ram, P.S. 21.5.02."
On the summons sent for 9.8.2002 for effecting service by Munadi, the report made by the Process Server on 4.7.2002 reads as hereunder :-
"Sir, It is submitted that for getting effected Munadi at the spot, I reached H. No. 4696 Guru Nanaka Wara, PO Khalsa College, Amritsar., Munadi was got done from Munadi Karinda Jaimal Singh through Teen (Pipa) and in loud voice to the effect that Harbans Singh son of Atma Singh is required to appear in the court of Shri Kishore Kumar C.J.M. Amritsar on 9.8.02 at 10.00 A.M. personally or through counsel and on his failure exparte proceedings will be taken against him. Munadi fee of Rs. 20/- at the spot and one page of notice has been affixed at the spot. Report is submitted. Vijay, P.S. 4.7.02 Jaimal Singh, Munadiwala H. No. 1120/20, Gali No. 399 Ram Tirath Road, Amritsar."
It is in the light of the aforesaid orders and the reports submitted by the Process Servers that the first question that arises for consideration is as to whether or not the application for leave to defend was filed within a period of 15 days from the time when the tenant was duly served. A reading of the report dated 21.5.2002 shows that Harbans Singh son of Atma Singh the tenant was asked to receive the summons. He kept the summons and the copy but refused to give the receipt. This service on 21.5.2002 was effected for 1.6.2002. On 1.6.2002 the Rent Controller noted that the respondent had refused to accept service and then ordered substituted service by way of munadi. Again report dated 4.7.2002 regarding munadi is very clear. In fact even the earlier report dated 10.4.2002 when summons were sent for 2.5.2002 also shows that one copy of the summons was affixed at the house of the tenant.
(3.)AFTER going through the reports and the zimni orders made by the Rent Controller, I am of the opinion that Harbans Singh tenant stood served on 21.5.2002 when he kept a copy of the summons and refused to give receipt. In any case he was again served by munadi on 4.7.2002.