JUDGMENT B. Upadhya, J. - This is a tenant's application in revision against an order passed by the Munsif West Allahabad u/s 7-B of the UP Control of Rent and Eviction Act. 2. It appears that an application u/s 7 B of the Act was filed on the 20th January 1958 and two notices of that application were issued on the 23rd of January 1958, one was sent by registered post and the other was sent for service in the ordinary manner through a process server. The notice that was sent for service by registered post reached the tenant on the 20th February 1958 but that which was sent for service in the ordinary manner was received by him much earlier on the 2nd of February 1958. On the 17th February 1958 the tenant filed a security bond executed by a doctor. This security bond was examined by the office and the Munsaram reported that it was defective in as much as it had not been executed in the name of the presiding officer of the court. The learned Munsif approved of the report and the mistake was subsequently rectified by the executant of the security Bond. The tenant, however, filed no objection. After the service of the second notice on the 20th February he filed objections on the 4th of March 1958. 3. The learned Munsif on hearing the parties took the view that the objections filed by the tenant on the 4th of March 1958 were filed beyond time as he was served with a notice u/s 7-B (3) on the 2nd of February 1958 and the fifteen days time for filing objections expired on the 17th of February 1958. In this view of the matter the learned Munsif passed an order that the tenant be ejected from the accommodation. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that u/s 7B the tenant has a right to file objections within 15 days of the service of a notice issued under this provision of the law. Even if no objection was filed within 15 days of the service of the first notice the tenant was entitled to file his objection within 15 days of the service of the second notice. It is contended that the notice itself according to sub. Even if no objection was filed within 15 days of the service of the first notice the tenant was entitled to file his objection within 15 days of the service of the second notice. It is contended that the notice itself according to sub. S. (3) is one which should ask him to pay the amount of arrears within 15 days of the service of the notice or to show cause within that period why an order directing him to be evicted from the accommodation be not passed against him. Sub.S. (5) lays down that where the notice is duly served under sub S. (3) but the tenant fails to deposit the amount within the time allowed in the notice and he does not file any objection the Munsif shall make an order directing him to be evicted from the accommodation. It is argued that this 15 days time for filing objections starts running from the date on which a tenant is served with a notice under S 7-B(3). In the instant case he was served with two notices. If cannot be said that the second notice which was served by registered post was not a notice u/s 7-B of the Act. If this notice expressly asked him to pay the amount or to furnish security and to file objections if any, the tenant had according to Learned Counsel every right to avail of this opportunity accorded to him by the second notice and the learned Munsif was not correct in taking the view that because he had not availed of a similar opportunity given to him under the previous notice he was not entitled to avail of this new opportunity which was afforded to him by the service of the second notice. 5. Mr. D.N. Agarwala Learned Counsel for the opposite party has argued the case lucidly and very fully. He contends that notice is merely intimation of certain facts given to a person. In the instant case two modes of service of the same notice were adopted by way of abundant(sic) caution. It is a fact that both the notices were issued by the court on the same date. If, therefore, the tenant received one copy of the notice on 2nd February 1958 and another copy of the same notice on 20th February 1958 he cannot be said to have been served with two notices. It is a fact that both the notices were issued by the court on the same date. If, therefore, the tenant received one copy of the notice on 2nd February 1958 and another copy of the same notice on 20th February 1958 he cannot be said to have been served with two notices. He was served with two copies of the same notice, one on one date and the other 18 days later. The service of the second copy could not give him a fresh right to file objections. Attention is also invited to the fact that the tenant filed no objection within 15 days of the service of the first notice on the 2nd February 1958 and the tenant not having done that the court was perfectly competent to order his eviction and this power of the court could not be negatived by the mere fact that a second copy of the same notice happened to reach the tenant some time later and the tenant filed his belated objections thereafter. 6. The objections raised by the Learned Counsel for the opposite party appear to be plausible but it is not possible to construe a notice as a mere intimation of facts to a party in the present case. Where according to Section 7B notice is required to be served in one way or another it obviously refers to the document containing the intimation which has to be given to the party concerned. The period provided to the tenant under the law for filing objections from the date on which he is served with a notice also indicates unmistakably that the document called the notice is meant by the statute. The period of 15 days which the tenant is allowed to file objections becomes available to him when he is served with a notice. If thus time became available to the applicant when he was served with a first notice on the 2nd of February 1958 it does not seem possible to say that it did not become available to him when he was served with a notice again on the 20th February 1958. If this did happen and he got 15 days within which he could filed objections, the objections which were filed on the 4th of March 1958 were evidently within time. 7. If this did happen and he got 15 days within which he could filed objections, the objections which were filed on the 4th of March 1958 were evidently within time. 7. Section 7B(3) mentions that the notice is to be served by 'registered post or otherwise' by the Munsif without unnecessary delay. Sub-section (12) says:- any notice issued under sub.S. (5) shall be served on the party by delivering a copy thereof to him or where the Munsif is satisfied that the party is evading service then by registered post and by beat of drum. 8. This provision shows that only one method of serving the notice should be adopted once. If the notice issued for service in the ordinary way through a process server cannot be delivered to a party concerned the Munsif, if satisfied that he is evading service, may resort to service by registered post and by beat of drum. If the learned Munsif had followed this rule the confusion that has arisen in this case would not have possibly arisen. Rather unnecessary haste in resorting to two methods of service simultaneously has brought about a situation which might have been avoided. In an ordinary civil suit or other proceeding where the notice contained merely intimation of a date of hearing fixed in court resort to such simultaneous methods of service may not bring about any difficulty but in a case where the service of a notice becomes the starting point of a period allowed by law to the other side for filing an objection or reply the fact that the two notices issued for service in two different ways may be served on two different dates and could create the difficulty which has actually arisen in the instant case. The learned Munsif could have foreseen that the service of the two notices on the same date was extremely improbable and that the Defendant would get intimation of an order of the court on two different dates to file objections within 15 days of each of these two dates. 9. The learned Munsif could have foreseen that the service of the two notices on the same date was extremely improbable and that the Defendant would get intimation of an order of the court on two different dates to file objections within 15 days of each of these two dates. 9. Whatever be the cause which has brought about the confusion which has arisen in this case it cannot be said that the second notice served on the 20th February 1958 was not a notice u/s 7-B of the Act or that it was not effective enough to give 15 days time as mentioned in the notice itself to the tenant to file his objections. The view taken by the learned Munsif, therefore, appears to be wrong and in proceeding to dispose of the application u/s 7-B be, therefore, was influenced by this erroneous view of the law and in my opinion in the exercise of his jurisdiction be acted with material irregularity in ignoring the objections filed by the tenant as filed within time. 10. The revision is, therefore, allowed, the order passed by the learned Munsif is set aside and the case is sent back to him for decision according to law. In the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs of this revision. 11. Learned Counsel for the opposite party informs me that there is a deposit made by the tenant in the court below under the orders of this Court which he was allowed to attach in execution of his decree for arrears of rent. this Court now makes no order relating to the amount deposited and the learned Munsif will deal with the matter as he considers proper.