G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE present revision application has been filed by the subsequent purchaser, being the present landlord challenging the order dated 20-9-1988 passed by the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bangalore setting aside an ex parte order of eviction dated 27-3-1985 passed in H. R. C. No. 3006 of 1984 on the ground that the respondent No. 1 was not validly served with the notice in the said proceedings. ( 2 ) THE first respondent was a tenant under the second respondent in respect of the schedule shop premises carrying on business of carpentry therein since 1976. The second respondent filed an eviction petition against respondent No. 1 under S. 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) inter alia on the ground of personal necessity. The said application was allowed ex parte and on 8-7-1985 delivery of possession was taken through the process of the Court in Execution Case No. 2298 of 1985. Subsequently, by a registered sale deed dated 31-7-1987, the said premises was purchased by the petitioner. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed an application for setting aside the eviction decree under O. 9, R. 13, C. P. C. read with R. 29 of the Karnataka Rent Control Rules, 1961 (herenafter the 'rules' only) which has been allowed by the impugned order. This order teas been challenged by the petitioner by asserting that all possible efforts had been made to serve the notice on respondent No. 1 in the said eviction proceedings. But since admittedly the fourth respondent was away to Saudi Arabia during the said period, the same could not be personally served upon him. As such, considering the substituted service as valid, the order of eviction was passed. Therefore, according to the petitioner there was absolutely no sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction. ( 4 ) IN the present case, admittedly, respondent No. 2 was away to Saudi Arabia during the period 11-11-1981 to 6-1-1987. It is also borne out from the records that as per the report of the Court Bailiff recorded on the reverse of the Court notice and that of the process server dated 11-12-1984 that when they went to effect the personal service of the Court notice, the premises was found closed. It is also borne out from the records that as per the report of the Court Bailiff recorded on the reverse of the Court notice and that of the process server dated 11-12-1984 that when they went to effect the personal service of the Court notice, the premises was found closed. Since all efforts to effect personal service through the Bailiff and process server of the Court failed, pursuant to the order passed by the Court, notice was sent under Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due. But the same also returned unserved with remark of the postal peon "no such person in the premises". From the said postal remark, it is found that the postal peon had visited the premises at least on seven consecutive dates. In the circumstances, it needs to be examined as to whether the ex parte order has been rightly set aside for want of a valid service or notice. ( 5 ) RULE 28 of the Rules provides for the manner in which intimation, notices and orders under the Act has to be given or served and it reads as under:"28. Manner in which intimation, notices and orders under the Act shall be given or served :- (1) Save as otherwise provided for in the Act or in these Rules, all notices, intimations and orders shall be served on the person concerned personally, by delivering or tendering to him the notice, intimation or order. (2) If such person is not found and service under sub-rule (1) is not possible, service may be effected by giving or tendering the notice, intimation or order to an adult member of the family and taking his acknowledgment. If there is no adult member willing to accept the service, service may be effected by affixing a copy of the notice, intimation or order on some conspicuous part of the last known place of abode or business of the person concerned. (3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1) or (2), the Controller or the Court may direct a notice, intimation or order to be sent to the person concerned by registered post, pre-paid for acknowledgment. Any acknowledgment received through post and any 'shara' or endorsement made by a postal official thereon shall be accepted as evidence of the fact stated therein without any further proof. Any acknowledgment received through post and any 'shara' or endorsement made by a postal official thereon shall be accepted as evidence of the fact stated therein without any further proof. " ( 6 ) SUB-RULE (3) of R. 28 noticed above is pre-fixed by a non abstante clause empowering the Court to direct service of notice, intimation or order by registered post notwithstanding the provisions regarding personal service and that by affixation contemplated under sub-rules (1) and (2) of the said Rules. The use of the expression, "notwithstanding anything in sub-rule (1) or (2)" unambiguously indicates that the mode of service of notice by registered post has been contemplated as the substitute to the modes provided under sub-rules (1) and (2 ). Therefore, once the Court directs for issuance of notice under registered post, no plea based on service of notice in the manner provided under sub-rules (1) and (2) can be entertained. Sub-rule (3) further provides a rule of evidence by declaring that any 'shara' or endorsement made by a postal official on the acknowledgment received through post shall be accepted as evidence of the fact stated therein without any further proof. Therefore, this provision, by statutorily accepting the correctness of the endorsement absolves the person sending the notice from laying any further proof with regard to the facts contained therein. No doubt, such a statutory presumption can be rebutted by the contesting party by leading cogent evidence so as to prove the falsity of the said endorsement. ( 7 ) IN the present case, it is an admitted fact that during the pendency of the proceedings when notices were sent for service of respondent No. 1, he was away to Saudi Arabia where he had been carrying on carpentry business. No evidence has been led to show that while leaving for Saudi Arabia or at anytime thereafter during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, he had intimated his landlord about his address in Saudi Arabia or that he had nominated any person to receive any notice or intimation on his behalf. Therefore, the correctness of the endorsement made by the postal peon on the acknowledgment has to be accepted as correct. Therefore, the correctness of the endorsement made by the postal peon on the acknowledgment has to be accepted as correct. ( 8 ) NOW the further question that falls for consideration is whether keeping in view the fact and law as stated above, the return of the registered notice without service on the first respondent can be deemed to be duly served so as to clothe the Court with the jurisdiction to pass an ex parte order. For eliciting an answer to the question, I would first like to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/ s. Madan and Co. v. Wazir Jaivir Chand reported in AIR 1989 SC 630 . ( 9 ) THE Supreme Court judgment, referred to above relates to an eviction proceeding under J and K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966. Under S. I 1 read with S. 12 of this Act, a tenant becomes liable for eviction if he fails to pay the arrears of rent within the stipulated period despite receipt of notice which the landlord is required to serve through post office under a registered cover. In the case before the Supreme Court, it was found that the notice sent through the registered post could not be served on the tenant because he had gone away to Amritsar for his treatment. None the less, the Apex Court affirmed the view of the High Court which has held that notices have been served by the landlord and received by the tenant. ( 10 ) THE Supreme Court in the above case, keeping in view the provisions of the Act, rejected the plea of the tenant that service by affixure such as those outlined in O. 5, Rr. 17 to 19 of the C. P. C. was a pre-requisite by holding that, "to require any such service to be effected over and above the postal service would be to travel outside the statute. Where the statute does not specify any such additional or alternative mode of service, there can be no warrant for importing into the statute a method of service on the lines of the provisions of the C. P. C. We would therefore not like to hold that the substituted service such as the one effected by the landlord in the present case is a necessary or permissible requirement of the statute. " Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while agreeing with the Court below took the view that too strict and literal compliances of S. 11 (1) and the proviso to S. 12 (3) of the Act before them would be too impracticable and unworkable. It was noticed that though the said proviso insisted that before any amount of rent can be said to be in arrears, a notice has to be served through post, all that a landlord can do to comply with this provision was to post a pre-paid registered letter containing the tenant's correct address. Once he does this and the letter is delivered to the post office he has no control over it. It is then presumed to have been delivered to the addressee under S. 27 of the General Clauses Act. Thereafter, considering the other facets of the problem, at the end of para 6, it has been held that :"in this situation, we have to choose the more reasonable, effective, equitable and practical interpretation and that would be to read the word "served" as "sent by post", correctly and properly addressed to the tenant, and the word "receipt" as the tender of the letter by the postal peon at the address mentioned in the letter. No other interpretation, we think, will find the situation as it is simply not possible for a landlord to ensure that a registered letter sent by him gets served on, or is received by, the tenant. " ( 11 ) IN view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court as noticed above, since in the present case there is no dispute that notices were sent under registered post in accordance with sub-rule (3) of R. 28 and the same could notbe served upon the respondent No. I because of his admitted absence from India it will be deemed that he has been duly served. ( 12 ) FOR the aforesaid reason, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained which is accordingly set aside. But there will be no order as to costs. Revision allowed. --- *** --- .