ORDER S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a tenants applicatian u/s 115 of the CPC against an order of the Munsif City, Kanpur, refusing to quash an order for their ejectment passed by the Court in their absence. The Respondent Baij Nath is the landlord of a two-door shop in Kanpur of which the Applicants are the tenants. On 10-1-1963 he filed an application for their ejectment on the ground that they had not paid the arrears of rent for more than three months. The amount mentioned in the application was Rs. 531/25. On that very day the Court directed the issue of notice to the Applicants under Sub-section (3)--that is, notice to pay the amount of arrears within 15 days or show cause against the application. The Court fixed 31-1-1963 as the date for showing cause. But the landlord took no step is to effect service. On 31st January he was given further time to effect service, and took steps. The notice directed the Applicants to pay Rs. 531/25 as arrears of rent. On 7th February he applied for amendment of the application by reducing the figure of arrears of rent from Rs. 531/25 to Rs. 331/00, which was allowed. He was again ordered to take steps to effect service on the Applicants. On the 16th February the case was listed before the Court, but as he had taken no steps the case was adjourned to 18th February. On that date the notice of the unamended application (claiming Rs. 531/25 as rent) was returned with the report that service had been effected by affixation because the Applicants were not present. The Court held that this service was insufficient and directed the landlord to take further steps for service of notice. On 21st February, the landlord deposited the notice to be sent by registered post and also by beat of drum. On that day the court permitted service by beat of drum, and fixed 19th of March for the next hearing. On 18th March the landlord deposited the process fee for service of notice by beat of drum. The court again directed service of notice by registered post and beat of drum and fixed the case for 25th May. On 20th March service was effected by beat of drum and affixation of notice on the tenants' house. On 18th March the landlord deposited the process fee for service of notice by beat of drum. The court again directed service of notice by registered post and beat of drum and fixed the case for 25th May. On 20th March service was effected by beat of drum and affixation of notice on the tenants' house. It is important to note that the Court did not record a finding that it was satisfied that the tenants were evading service. On 18th April the Applicants deposited a sum of Rs. 331/- in Court. On 24th April the landlord made an application stating that service had been effected by beat of drum on 20th March and prayed for an order of eviction on the ground that the tenant had neither deposited the rent nor shown cause within 15 days. On the same day, the Munsif passed an order for the eviction of the tenants. On 30th April, the tenants filed objections against their eviction and against the landlords application of 24th April. They alleged (on affidavit) that they were not aware of any notice from the Court, that they were in Calcutta from 13th March till 30th March and returned to Kanpur on 3rd April, that on arrival they learnt from their younger brother that in their absence a postman had been to the shop two or three times with a registered letter but did not deliver it to him, that on learning this one of the tenants (Mohd. Nafees) immediately went to the Court to make inquiries, that on the same day he signed a challan which was presented to the Court on 4th April, and a sum of Rs. 331/- was deposited within 15 days of receiving knowledge of the notice; that the landlord had secured an order of eviction by misrepresentation and fraud. They contended that the eviction order was illegal as they had deposited the rent within 15 days of knowledge of the proceedings, and prayed for its being set aside. The Court admitted the application and ordered an inquiry and stayed the tenants' eviction meanwhile. The inquiry lasted for more than a year as some witnesses had to be examined in Calcutta. Ultimately, on 10th August 1964 the Munsif passed an order rejecting the tenants objections confirming the order of eviction. 2. Mr. The Court admitted the application and ordered an inquiry and stayed the tenants' eviction meanwhile. The inquiry lasted for more than a year as some witnesses had to be examined in Calcutta. Ultimately, on 10th August 1964 the Munsif passed an order rejecting the tenants objections confirming the order of eviction. 2. Mr. J.N. Tewari for the Applicants argued that the Munsif acted illegally in sanctioning service of notice by drum without satisfying himself that the Applicants were evading service. After hearing counsel for both sides I think this argument must prevail. 3. Sub-section (3) of Section 7-B enjoins that the Munsif shall, without unnecessary delay, serve by registered post or otherwise a notice (of the landlord's application u/s 7-B) on the tenant asking him to pay the amount of arrears within. 15 days of the service thereof, or to show cause within the same period why an order of eviction should not be passed against him. The manner of service of notice under Sub-section (3) is prescribed under sub-Section (12) which runs thus: "(12) Any notice issued under Sub-section (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." (The reference to Sub-section (5) is an obvious error, as that sub-section does not provide for the issue of any notice. It was conceded by both counsel that the words "Sub-section (5)" are a mis-print for "Sub-Section (3)"). This sub-section provides for an ordinary mode of service and a special mode. The ordinary mode of service is by delivering a copy of the notice to the tenant. But if the Munsif is satisfied that the party is avoiding service, he may direct service by the special mode--namely, by registered post or by beat of drum. But he cannot resort to the special mode of service unless he is satisfied that there has been an evasion of service. The reason is that limitation for filing objections begins to run from the date of service, and therefore the tenant must be served personally unless the Court is satisfied that he is evading service. But a judicial finding that the Court is so satisfied is a condition precedent for the special manner of service by registered post and beat of drum. But a judicial finding that the Court is so satisfied is a condition precedent for the special manner of service by registered post and beat of drum. This finding is, in view of the irrevocable consequences to the tenant of the expiry of the time limit for filing an objection, a salutary safeguard against an erroneous or fraudulent report that the tenant is evading service. In this case, the Munsif did not even apply his mind to the question whether the Applicants were evading service before sanctioning the special mode of Service. This is a material irregularity which vitiates his decision. 4. Counsel for the Respondent argued that this Court should not exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicants in view of the finding of the trial court that they hid knowledge of the proceedings u/s 7-B and yet did not deposit the arrears of rent within time. I cannot agree. I have gone through the entire record with the assistance of counsel for both sides and have not been able to discover any evidence which could justify the lower court's remark that the Applicants were aware of the proceedings before the 3rd of April 1963. It is true that the Respondent had filed an affidavit alleging that the Applicants had knowledge of the proceedings and that their allegation that they had gone to Calcutta was false. But the Applicants had filed an affidavit giving particulars of their visit to Calcutta and also produced evidence of several residents of Calcutta in support of their allegation. They also tendered the evidence of several witnesses in Kanpur. The proper course for the Munsif under such circumstances was to weigh the evidence on both sides and decide whose version was true. Instead of doing this the Munsif preferred to base his conclusions on some over-writing in the challan of payment tendered by the Applicants. This challan refers to a payment of Rs. 351/-by the Applicants in Court but at the foot there is a date, 30-3-63, which was subsequently crossed out. The learned Munsif presumed that the figure was written and subsequently crossed out by the Applicants. Of this there was not a trace of evidence. On the contrary, as pointed out by Mr. This challan refers to a payment of Rs. 351/-by the Applicants in Court but at the foot there is a date, 30-3-63, which was subsequently crossed out. The learned Munsif presumed that the figure was written and subsequently crossed out by the Applicants. Of this there was not a trace of evidence. On the contrary, as pointed out by Mr. J.N. Tewari, the date was probably written and crossed out by some official of the court or the Treasury who had to fill in the blanks at the foot of the challan. In any case, the learned Munsif was guilty of a material irregularity in coming to the o-rave conclusion that the Applicants were guilty of tampering with the court's records without giving them an opportunity to dispel his suspicious. The proper course for him was to place his doubts before the Applicants and give them an opportunity of explaining. His failure to do so is another material irregularity which vitiates the decision. 5. I allow this revision and set aside the order of the learned Munsif dated 24-4-1963 directing the eviction of the Applicants and also his order of 10-8-1964 rejecting their objections against this order. The record shall be sent back to the learned Munsif with the direction that he should accept the arrears of rent paid by the Applicants as within time and pay the amount to the Respondent in satisfaction of the arrears claimed by him. Mr. J.N. Tewari has stated before me that the Applicants have deposited this amount for purpose of payment to the landlord and not for filing any objection under Sub-section (7). In view of this statement I dismiss the Respondents application u/s 7-B. But as the rent was admittedly in arrears, the Applicants shall pay the costs of the Respondent in the court below. The costs in this revision shall be borne by the parties.