JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - This writ petition has been filed by Ravindra Kumar Chopra, who is a tenant of the building. 2. The landlord filed a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent and despite being served with a notice of demand has not paid the same. 3. The plaint was filed on 27.1.1978 and on that date the Court directed summons to issue for 16.3.1978. On 16.3.1878 it was found that the service of the summons was insufficient and fresh summons was ordered to be issued for 11.5.1978 by both processes. On 22.3.1978 the office reported that the steps have been taken and summons were issued for the dates fixed, i.e. 11.5.1978. From the record it appears that summons sent through the process server was served on the brother of the petitioner namely Vinod, along with a copy of the plaint. Summons by registered post were received by the petitioner. 4. On 11.5.1978 an application 12- Gha was filed by the counsel for the petitioner stating that the summons by registered post was served on the petitioner but alongwith the summons a copy of the plaint had not been served on the petitioner. A prayer was made in the application that the plaintiffs be directed to supply a copy of the plaint and prayed for one month's time to file a written statement. The Court on that date directed the plaintiffs to supply a copy of the plaint to the petitioner and gave one month's time to the petitioner to file a written statement and fixed 20.7.1978 for evidence. On the order sheet there is an endorsement (it appears to be by the counsel for the petitioner) that he had received the copy of the plaint. 5. On 20.7.1978 a written statement was filed and a sum of Rs. 226/- was given by the petitioner to the plaintiff's counsel who received it under protest. 6. The trial Court held that since the defendant was in arrears of rent despite service of notice of demand and further that the petitioner was not protected by Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, as he had not made the deposit contemplated by that provision at or before the first date of hearing. The trial Court held that the petitioner was liable to ejectment. The trial Court held that the petitioner was liable to ejectment. The suit was decreed on 22.9.1978 for arrears of rent, ejectment and mesne profit. 7. The petitioner preferred a revision. The revisional Court had taken the view that the first date of hearing was 11.5.1978 and as such the petitioner not having made the requisite deposit by that date, was not protected from ejectment. This appears to be the only question urged in the revision. The revision was accordingly dismissed. 8. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the services of summons on the brother of the petitioner namely, Vinod, was not a service as contemplated by Rule 28 of the rules framed under the Act. 10. Rule 28 runs as follows : "28. Service of notice [Section 34 (8)] (1) A notice issued by the District Magistrate, the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate or Revising Authority under provisions of the Act shall be served on the person concerned :- (a) by giving or tendering it to such person, or his counsel; or (b) by giving or tendering to any adult member of his family; (c) ....... ......... (d) ....... ......... 11. The word 'family' has been defined in Section 3(g) of the Act as under : "(g) 'Family' in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means his or her - (i) spouse, (ii) male lineal descendants, (iii) such parents, grand parent any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendants as may have been normally residing with him or her, 12. It will be immediately seen that a brother does not come within the definition of 'family'. In the circumstances, the service of the notice on Vinod, the brother of the petitioner, was not a service as contemplated by Rule 28. The fact that a copy of the plaint was served alongwith the summons on the brother of the petitioner, will, therefore be irrelevant. 13. The summons sent to the petitioner was admittedly served by registered post acknowledgement which is on record and bears the signature of the petitioner. 14. The fact that a copy of the plaint was served alongwith the summons on the brother of the petitioner, will, therefore be irrelevant. 13. The summons sent to the petitioner was admittedly served by registered post acknowledgement which is on record and bears the signature of the petitioner. 14. On 11.5.1978 which was the date fixed in the summons, as application 12-C was filed and in that application an assertion was made that the summons had not been accompanied with a copy of the plaint and a request was made to the Court that the plaintiff be directed to supply a copy of the plaint. That Court accepted that prayer and directed the plaintiff to serve a copy of the plaint. A copy of the plaint was served on counsel for the petitioner on that very date as is borne out by the endorsement made on the order sheet. 15. A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider a similar question in the case of Shafiqur Rahman Khan v. IInd Additional District Judge, Rampur and others, 1982(1) ARC 729. The Division Bench has laid down that Order 5, Rule 2 contemplates that a copy of the plaint must accompany the summons. It was further held that in a case where summons had been served but were not accompanied with the copy of plaint, the date fixed in the summons cannot be treated as the first date for hearing for the purposes of Section 20(4) of the Act. 16. Neither of the Courts has invested the plea of the petitioner that a copy of the plaint did not accompany the summons fixing 11.5.1978. The matter should have been investigated by the Courts below and a finding recorded. If courts below found that the summons were accompanied by the copy of the plaint then the first date of hearing would be 11.5.1978, otherwise the first date of hearing in this case would be 20.7.1978 which was the next date fixed on 11.5.1978. 17. In view of the fact that a proper investigation of facts has not been done by the Courts below, the matter has to be remanded. However, it is made clear that no other finding of the Court is being disturbed in this writ petition. 18. 17. In view of the fact that a proper investigation of facts has not been done by the Courts below, the matter has to be remanded. However, it is made clear that no other finding of the Court is being disturbed in this writ petition. 18. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the order of the revisional authority dated 6.8.1979 is set-aside and the revisional authority is directed to decide the revision afresh in the light of the observations made in this judgment. The parties will appear before the revisional Court on 21.2.1984 on which date the revisional authority can fix a date for hearing. The parties will bear their own costs.