Short Note : Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as regards service of notice apparently provides three modes- (i) It could be sent by post, (ii) tendered or delivered personally, (iii) affixed to a conspicuous part of the property. Affixture is contemplated where tender or delivery is not practicable. It is not obligatory on any landlord to resort to all the three modes as specified in the section. Before the notice is served by affixture on the conspicuous part of the tenanted premises, the language of section 106 uses the word "or" and not "and" while prescribing the mode of service. Therefore, if any of the three modes of personal service is attempted and it is unsuccessful the landlord can adopt the last mode of service by affixture on the conspicuous part of the tenant's property. In this view of the matter therefore the postman having failed to serve by tender to the tenant if the landlord chose to affix the notice it could not be said that it is not proper compliance of section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the present case, apart from it, one notice is served on the respondent No.2 who is the brother of appellant and therefore will fall within the category of "an adult member of the family" of the appellant. Therefore in the circumstances of the case the conclusions arrived at by both the learned Courts below that notice under section 106 Transfer of Property Act was properly served are justified and there is no reason to interfere with that finding. Om Prakash Bahal v. A.V. Shroff, 1973 All India Rent Control Journal 149, Laxmibai v. Girdharilal, 1973 JLJ-SN 93 relied on. 2. Learned counsel for appellant also contended that under rule 15(b) of the Rules framed under the Accommodation Control Act a notice of demand of arrears of rent must be served by registered post with acknowledgement due. Rule 15 contemplates service by notice by two modes, (i) by delivery to the person or (ii) by forwarding it to the person by registered post with acknowledgement due. The language in clause (b) of rule 15 "forwarding it to the person" is significant. It appears that what is contemplated by this phrase is that as soon as the notice is forwarded to the person by registered post with acknowledgement due, it is sufficient compliance with rule 15. The language in clause (b) of rule 15 "forwarding it to the person" is significant. It appears that what is contemplated by this phrase is that as soon as the notice is forwarded to the person by registered post with acknowledgement due, it is sufficient compliance with rule 15. What learned counsel wanted to contend was that it should be served and an acknowledgement receipt obtained, then alone rule 15 could be said to have been complied with. Unfortunately, what the learned counsel contends is not the language of the rule and it is not possible for this Court to read in the rule what is not there. Apparently, it appears that while framing rule 15 an inference about service was considered that when a registered letter with acknowledgement due is forwarded through post the presumption is that it will reach the addressee. In this view of the matter therefore it could not be contended that notice has not been sent as contemplated under rule 15 and therefore a decree for eviction on the ground under section 12(1)(a) of the Accommodation Control Act could not be passed. 3. As regards service of summons on the appellant the bailiff report indicates that the appellant was hiding and evading service on 13, 16, 17 and 23rd of August 1973 and his brother respondent No.2 was also obstructing service of summons. He also does not allow the bailiff to affix the summons on the property. This is the report submitted by the bailiff on oath. The endorsements on each day on the summons also mention the same thing that the defendant hides himself inside the house and does not come out and thereby is evading service of summons. On this report of the bailiff the learned trial Court accepted it to be proper service. Learned counsel contended that under Order 5, rule 17 the service could not be accepted as valid as there was no affixture nor was there an order by the Court for affixture of summons on the property in possession of the defendant appellant. Order 5, rule 17 does not contemplate an order by the Court. Learned counsel contended that under Order 5, rule 17 the service could not be accepted as valid as there was no affixture nor was there an order by the Court for affixture of summons on the property in possession of the defendant appellant. Order 5, rule 17 does not contemplate an order by the Court. What Order 5, rule 17 contemplates is that where the defendant or anyone on his behalf refused to sign the acknowledgement or where in spite of due care it is not possible to find the defendant at his residence then the serving officer shall affix the summons on a conspicuous part of the house. In the present case the report of the bailiff indicates that defendant was evading the service, his brother respondent No.2 avoided the affixture although as the report of the bailiff indicate one summons had been affixed earlier for respondent No 2. And on these facts the Court found that Order 5, rule 17 CPC had been complied with. In the circumstances of the case as the report of the bailiff indicates that the defendant appellant was avoiding service and one of the notices had already been affixed, the learned Judge accepted this service and proceeded ex-parte. There is nothing in the evidence to indicate that what the bailiff reported is not correct as the defendant has chosen not to contravene those facts and in this view of the matter if the learned Courts below accepted the bailiff's report and held that the service is proper, it could not be said than he Courts below have committed any error of low. 4. Order 15, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an en enabling provision to meet a situation where out of several defendants one or some of them are not at issue, then the order enables the court to pass judgment against such defendants there and then and permits the court to proceed against the other defendants subsequently. It was contended by learned counsel that rule 2 of Order 15 does not contemplate a case of ex parte proceedings. It was contended by learned counsel that rule 2 of Order 15 does not contemplate a case of ex parte proceedings. But from the language of the rule it could not be said that this rule cannot be applied in case of ex-parte proceedings what the rule requires is that where anyone of the defendants is not at issue with the plaintiff on any question of law or fact, the Court may in such a situation pronounce the judgment against such defendant. Admittedly, in the present case as the defendant appellant did not file a written statement and the Court below recorded the evidence ex-parte, apparently this appellant was not at issue at all with the plaintiff. The ex-parte evidence having been recorded there remained nothing except to pass a decree against the appellant and that under the provisions of rule 2 of Order 15 CPC could be done by the Court below and it appears that the Court passed the decree following this rule. The learned lower appellate Court also maintained the same. There is nothing on the basis of which it could be held that in doing so the learned Courts below have committed any error of procedure or any error of law. Appeal dismissed.