JUDGMENT S.S. Ahmad, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was a tenant of opposite party No. 1 in respect of house No. 149/70, Ahata Shekhan, ward Wazirganj, Lucknow at the rate of Rs. 7.50 per month. A suit for his eviction from the house in question was filed by opposite party No. I on the ground that he had not paid the rent within one month from the date of receipt of notice dated 131175 which was served upon him on 27111975. The summon of the suit was issued to the petitioner which, according to the report of the process server, was served upon him personally. He did not put in appearance and the suit was directed to proceed ex parte. It was fixed For hearing on 191076. The opposite party No. 1 is said to have proved his case by an affidavit dated 141076 and on that basis the trial court decreed the suit exparte on 191076. 2. The petitioner then applied For setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that the summons had not been served upon him. The trial court, however, by its order dated 11278, rejected the application with the finding that the summons were personally served upon the petitioner. The revision filed against that order was dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 141278. The petitioner then filed a second revision in this court which was, however, dismissed on 19979 in view of the decision in M/S. Jupiter Chit Fund Put. Ltd. v. Dwarika Das Dayal & another (AIR 1979 Alld 218 FB.) The petitioner then filed the present writ petition. 3. Opposite party No. 1 has filed his counter affidavit and a rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the lower court record. 4. It appears that the suit was originally fixed for hearing on 141076 and then it was adjourned to 191076 for ex parte hearing after the summons were treated by the trial court to have been served upon the petitioner. In the meantime opposite party No. 1 filed his affidavit dated 141076 in proof of the facts pleaded by him in the plaint. A perusal of that affidavit would indicate that the plaintiff (opposite party no. In the meantime opposite party No. 1 filed his affidavit dated 141076 in proof of the facts pleaded by him in the plaint. A perusal of that affidavit would indicate that the plaintiff (opposite party no. 1) had not stated therein that the petitioner had not paid the entire amount of arrears of rent demanded from him within one month of the date of receipt of the notice dated 131175. In the absence of any averment to that effect in the aforesaid affidavit, it was not possible for the trial court to decree the suit as the plea that the defendant (petitioner) had committed default in payment of rent was not established. 5. The petitioner in his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC had challenged the service of summons upon him. The application was duly signed by him. His signatures on other documents were also available on the record. The trial court, therefore, should not have gone merely by the endorsement of the process server on the back of the summons or the socalled signature of the petitioner on that summon. When the petitioner had himself challenged the service of summons upon him, the trial court should have looked to the signature of the petitioner on the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC or other admitted signatures of the petitioner and compared them with the disputed signature to find out whether the summons had been served upon the petitioner and that the petitioner had signed the summons in token of having received the same. There were other modes also available under law to find this out. I am, therefore, inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial court as also by the revisional court as I am clearly of the opinion that justice has not been done in the case and suit was decreed ex parte inspite of there being no proof in respect of the default said to have been committed by the petitioner in payment of rent. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 11278 contained in Annexure 3 and 141278 contained in Annexure 4 are hereby quashed. The case is remanded to the trial court to dispose of the petitioner's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. The parties shall. bear their own costs. The impugned judgment and order dated 11278 contained in Annexure 3 and 141278 contained in Annexure 4 are hereby quashed. The case is remanded to the trial court to dispose of the petitioner's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. The parties shall. bear their own costs. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 17121984. The lower court record shall be sent back immediately. (Petition allowed)