A. G. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 28-12-1990, passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Indore in Case No. 90 (7) 10/90, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Order 9, Rule 7, C. P. C. dated 4-5-1990 was dismissed. ( 2 ) THE short facts of the case are that the present non-applicant Smt. Godaveribai had filed an application under Section 23-A (2) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act before the lower Court for seeking eviction of house No. B-3 situated in Saket Nagar, Indore on the ground of bona fide need for residence of herself and her family members. The lower Court issued a notice of the eviction application against the present applicant but the notice was not served on the applicant himself. Instead of a report was given by the process-server that he had gone to the address given for serving the notice on the respondent but the respondent was found absent. However, his father Shri Ramgopal Khandelwal was present who took the notice, read it and returned it and refused to take the notice. Shri Ramgopal Khandelwal resides with Suresh Kumar. On the aforesaid report of the process-server the court vide its order dated 6-4-1990 held that the summons was served on the respondent and as he was not present on the date an order to proceed ex parte against the respondent was recorded. The respondent thereafter filed an application before the lower Court for setting aside the ex parte order under Order 9, Rule 7, on 4-5-1990. The learned lower Tribunal after obtaining the reply of the original applicant and hearing the arguments passed the impugned order disallowing the application of the present applicant/respondent. Hence this revision petition, ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the present applicant Suresh Kumar argues that the order impugned is contrary to law and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. The lower Court has not considered the relevant law on the point and has failed to take into consideration the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the present applicant in the lower Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-applicant has supported the order impugned on the ground that the application of the present applicant for setting aside the ex parte order has rightly been disallowed by the lower Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the non-applicant has supported the order impugned on the ground that the application of the present applicant for setting aside the ex parte order has rightly been disallowed by the lower Court. ( 4 ) AFTER considering the respective argument of the learned counsel and persuing the record, I am of the opinion that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. Undisputedly the report of the process-server is that as the respondent was not present when he went to the house of the respondent, he served the notice on the father of the respondent who was residing with him, who although took the notice initially but after going through it refused to take the notice. In view of the aforesaid report, it has to be seen whether under the law the aforesaid report of the process-server can be held sufficient for holding that the summons is properly served on the respondent. For that let us look into the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in respect of service of summons. ( 5 ) ORDER 5, Rule 9, C. P. C. provides that summons have to be served through a proper officer, or one of his subordinates. Rule 10 of Order 5 speaks of the mode of service which says that the service of the summons shall be made by delivering or tendering a copy thereof signed by the Judge or such officer, as may be appointed in this behalf, and sealed with the seal of the court. Now Rule 12 of Order 5 states that whenever it is practicable, service shall be made on the defendant in person, unless he has an agent empowered to accept service, in which case service on such agent is sufficient. Now the most relevant rule for our purpose is Rule 15 of Order 5, CPC which is as under:-"where in any suit the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, service may be made on any adult member of the family, whether male or female, who is residing with him. Explanation : A servant is not a member of the family, within the meaning of this rule. "by above reading of this rule it is manifest that a service of the summons can be made on the adult member of the defendant family, provided the following conditions exist at the time of such service : (I) That the defendant is absent from his residence at the time when the service of summons is sought to be effected on him at his residence. (ii) That there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time. (iii)That he has no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf. If the above three conditions exist, then the summon may be served on the adult member of the family, whether male or female. Now according to the report of the process-server, one of the pre-conditions for service on the adult member of the family is absent viz. that there is no likelihood of the defendant being found at his residence within a reasonable time. Now in respect of the refusal to acknowledgment of the summons, Rule 17 of Order 5, C. P. C. provides as under :-"where the defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgment or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant who is absent from his residence at the time when service is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time, cannot find the defendant and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and shall then return the original to the court from which it was issued, with a report endorsed thereon or annexed thereto stating that he has so affixed the copy, the circumstances under which he did so, and the name and address of the person (if any) by whom the house was identified and in whose presence the copy was affixed. "the aforesaid rule in unequivocal terms says that when the defendant or his agent or any adult member of the family residing with the defendant refuses to sign the acknowledgment, or where the defendant who is found absent at the time of the service of summons, cannot be found after using all due and reasonable diligence and no other person on whom the service is available, then the serving officer shall fix a copy of the summons on the outer part of some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and then return the original to the court from which it was issued, with the endorsement on the report of the summons stating the affixation of the copy and the circumstances which led to the affixation. ( 6 ) RULE 19 of Order 5, C. P. C. provides that if the summons is returned under Rule 17, the court shall if the report is not verified by the affidavit of the serving officer, examine the serving officer and make such further enquiry in the matter as it thinks fit and shall either declare that the summons has been duly served or order such service as it thinks fit. Now in the instant case, it is clear that the process-server has not stated in the report that although the defendant was absent from his residence at the time of the service, but there was no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time. In the absence of this report of the process-server, the service could not be made on an adult member of the family. As such, one of the ingredients for serving the summons on the father of the present applicant being absent, it cannot be said that the provisions of Rule 15 of Order 5, C. P. C. were complied with. Similarly when the father of the defendant refused to accept the service, then the procedure as provided under Rule 17 of Order 5, C. P. C. had to be adopted. Similarly when the father of the defendant refused to accept the service, then the procedure as provided under Rule 17 of Order 5, C. P. C. had to be adopted. But it appears that neither the provisions of Rule 15 of Order 5 have been complied with in the instant case, nor that under Rule 17 of Order 5 have been pressed into service by the bailiff and consequently the court has also not followed the procedure provided under Rule 19 of Order 5, C. P. C. Shri Agrawal learned counsel for the applicant has cited verious authorities in support of his argument but in view of the clear provisions of law as stated above, I need not burden this order with the discussion of the aforesaid authorities. ( 7 ) IN the result, this revision is allowed. The order impugned dismissing the application of the present applicant is quashed. Instead the application under Rule 7 of Order 9, C. P. C. filed by the present applicant is allowed. The parties shall appear before the lower court on 12-7-1992. Before that date the application for leave to defend shall be filed before the lower court by the present applicant-defendant. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed. .