Civil Revision No. 8390 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 1. Civil Revision No. 8390 of 2010 Varundeep Singh alias Varandeep Singh …Petitioners Versus Kuldip Singh …Respondent AND 2. Civil Revision No. 8391 of 2010 Varundeep Singh alias Varandeep Singh …Petitioners Versus Kuldip Singh …Respondent Date of Decision: 22.12.2010 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Jain, Advocate for the caveator/respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, both the revision petitions viz. Civil Revision No. 8390 of 2010 titled as “Varundeep Singh alias Varandeep Singh v. Kuldip Singh” and No. 8391 of 2010 titled as “Varundeep Singh alias Varandeep Singh v. Kuldip Singh”, shall be decided together. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that report on the Civil Revision No. 8390 of 2010 2 summons, issued for effecting service upon the petitioner/tenant, was manipulated and his signatures have been forged, therefore, in these circumstances, an ex parte eviction order dated 17.11.2010, passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, should be set aside. It is further contended that limitation for filing of application for leave to defend shall commence from the date of knowledge. It is further submitted that since no valid service has been effected upon the petitioner/tenant and the report of the Process Server, on the summons, is to be doubted because of various suspicious circumstances, reasonable opportunity be afforded to the petitioner/tenant to contest the eviction petition. Issue notice of motion. Mr. Vikas Jain, Advocate, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the caveator/respondent. At this stage, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent submits that in case the evidence is led before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, it will be duly proved by the respondent/landlord that service was duly effected upon the petitioner/tenant and also notices were sent by speed post as well as registered post. Learned counsel for the caveator/respondent further submits that an opportunity be granted to the parties to adduce their evidence on the issue as to whether the service was validly effected upon the petitioner/tenant or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has no objection thereto. Accordingly, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 17.11.2010, passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court of Rent Controller with a direction to frame an issue as to whether service Civil Revision No. 8390 of 2010 3 was validly effected upon the petitioner/tenant or not and permit the parties to lead their evidence, by affording three opportunities to both of them and decide this issue within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the Rent Controller opines that the ex parte proceedings were not rightly initiated, the petitioner/tenant shall be permitted to urge that the leave to contest ought to be granted to him, however, such a prayer shall be dealt with in consonance with the facts and law of the case. With the observations made above, the present revision petitions are disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 22, 2010 “DK”