1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 188 OF 2008 N WRIT PETITION NO. 525 OF 2008 (Smt. Ayodhyabai B. Agrawal vs. Radheshyam G. Basdiya & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. SEPTEMBER 04, 2009. Heard Shri Bhattad, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Joshi, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. The argument of the appellant is that the notice of Rent Control proceedings for eviction issued on 15.4.2002 was never served upon the present appellant and the authority erroneously treated the same as service and passed ex parte order. He states that this issue was specifically raised before the appellate authority under clause 21 of C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, but that authority has not considered the challenge. According to Shri Bhattad, learned Single Judge has also not applied mind on these lines. Shri Joshi, learned counsel points out that earlier notice was sent by R.P.A.D. and as that notice was avoided, service through Peon working in the office of the Rent Controller was effected. He states that the 2 copy of notice bears the signature of appellant and Rent Controller has on the next date i.e. 29.4.2002 treated the same as valid service. He further states that in appeal and before the learned Single Judge, the only argument was about legality about the mode and manner of effecting service through Peon. He relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of V.K. Saboo vs. Additional Collector, Nagpur, reported at 2005 (1) Mh.L.J. 1147, to contend that such service through Peon is legally valid. With the assistance of both the learned counsel, we have perused the papers. The issuance of registered A.D. notice earlier is not in dispute. The grievance was, thereafter for 2 ½ years landlord has not taken any steps and suddenly on 15.4.2002 a fresh notice was issued which was served through Peon. The papers also show that simultaneously proceedings for determination of fair rent between parties were going on before the very same authority and in those proceedings the present appellant – tenant had taken the stand that his landlord has separately filed application seeking permission for her eviction. The perusal of appellate order shows that service effected through Peon was assailed by pointing out that rules do not contemplate such service and the service in order to be legal or valid, must be only by R.P.A.D. The appellate authority has considered the arguments as advanced and recorded a finding against the present appellant. The said finding 3 has been maintained by the learned Single Judge. Though in appeal before the Appellate authority the plea that such notice was never received by the present appellant was taken, it is apparent that the arguments before the appellate authority were on different lines. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.