SHISHIR Kumar, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 24. 10. 2008 and 29. 11. 2004, Annexures 5 and 3 to the writ petition. The petitioner being a tenant, a suit was filed for arrears of rent and ejectment by the respondent- landlord. The said suit was decreed exparte by order dated 13. 3. 2001. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the said exparte order. After giving full opportunity to the petitioner application was rejected holding therein that registered notice was sent to the petitioner and it has been refused. Subsequently, summons were pasted on the house. Taking into consideration the said fact, the Judge small Causes Court has found that service upon the petitioner is sufficient application was rejected by order dated 29. 11. 2004. The petitioner filed a revision which too has been dismissed on the ground that service was sufficient and the petitioner deliberately avoided the service and there is no proper explanation regarding filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 C. P. C. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order has approached this Court. Reliance has been placed upon two judgments rendered (1) in the case of Sushil Kumar Sabharwal Vs. Gurpreet Singh and others (A. I. R. 2002 Supreme Court 2370 and (2) in the case of Sushil Kumar Saha Vs. Juran Chandra Saha (A. I. R. 1993 Gauhati 48 ). Further submission has been made that before revisional court petitioner submitted an application that the summons as well as the document regarding sending the registry was not available in the original record, therefore, that may be summoned. It has further been submitted that similar application has been filed by the landlord also, therefore, it can easily be inferred that there was no document to show regarding service on the petitioner. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record. A finding has been recorded on the basis of the relevant record that registry which was sent, the postman on the envelop on 8. 10. 1999 has endorsed that it has been refused. Further the summons were sent by court and Court Amin pasted upon the house in question. Further a finding has been recorded that the same address mentioned in the envelop which was sent by the registered post, the same address has been mentioned by the petitioner in the application. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that if petitioner is living in the said accommodation, why it has not been received by him. This clearly goes to show that the petitioner has refused to take the same deliberately only to permit the court to proceed exparte. Regarding this finding the trial court as well as the revisional court have rejected the claim of the petitioner but as regards the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact of this case as well as the fact cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are different. In the case of Sushil Kumar Sabharwal (Supra) the service of summons was served upon the tenant just one day before the hearing. It was refused, then the process server neither affixed the copy of the summons nor any endorsement to that effect was made. In such a situation, the Apex Court has recorded a finding that it will amount that service was not sufficient. Another judgment cited by the leaned counsel for the petitioner is also not applicable to the present case as in that case the service of summons was effected immediately after two days of filing the suit. I have perused the record and finding recorded by the court below and I find that there is no illegality in the finding recorded by the court and it clearly appears that the petitioner has deliberately avoided the service only to linger on the proceeding. In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order is passed as to costs. .;