dissenting.
The basic issue involved in this appeal is the constitutionality of that portion of the subject statute (Code Ann. § 61-302 (a)) providing in dispossessory warrant proceedings that, "if no such person is found residing on the premises, [service may be perfected] by tacking a copy of [the] summons and affidavit on the door *214of the premises.”
It is apparent from the wording of the statute that the alternative service method of tacking was considered by the General Assembly to be the least acceptable manner in which to serve a defendant in a dispossessory warrant proceeding. It is not to be used unless personal service upon the defendant cannot be achieved and only then if personal service on any other person sui juris residing on the premises cannot be made.
The statute provides no enforceable safeguard to assure that "reasonable” attempts at either personal service on the defendant or substitute personal service on another adult resident are made. Presumably, the requirements of the statute authorizing service by tacking would be satisfied by a showing that the sheriff, or constable, went to the residence once and, finding no one at home, tacked the notice on the door. In a somewhat analogous situation, this court commented on this type of service. In Womble v. Commercial Credit Corp., 231 Ga. 569, 571 (203 SE2d 204), a case dealing with service of process under Code Ann. § 81-202 (leaving copy at defendant’s residence), it was held: "The mere leaving of copy of suit at the residence of the defendant is not reasonably calculated to apprise him of the pendency of an action against him. He may be absent from such residence for an extended length of time. He may be in the process of moving from one residence to another. The copy may be destroyed by inclement weather, or be removed by other persons. We, therefore, conclude that the provisions of § 81-202 of the Code of 1933, authorizing service by leaving a copy at the residence of the defendant, was in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
The landlord argues that where the tenant or any other adult resident is unavailable for personal service, tacking of notice upon the door of the premises is the best kind of notice and that the landlord, as the legal owner of the premises, must have some reasonable means of serving process upon his tenant who may choose to be difficult to locate. The answer to this argument is that the necessity for notice to the defendant in a dis*215possessory warrant proceeding is no less important than the notice required to be given a defendant in any litigation.
Dispossessory warrant proceedings have been changed drastically in recent years to meet due process standards and now contemplate by statute true adversary proceedings with notice and opportunity to be heard and an in personam judgment is rendered on money issues similar to proceedings in other civil cases. See Code Ann. § 61-305. Dispossessory proceedings, under Code Ann. § 61-301 et seq., are subject to the Civil Practice Act. See Ga. L. 1970, p. 968 et seq.; Ga. L. 1971, p. 536 et seq.; and Queen v. Harrell, 126 Ga. App. 122 (190 SE2d 160).
In Thompson v. Lagerquist, 232 Ga. 75 (205 SE2d 267), the Justices of this court then serving unanimously concurred in an opinion written by Justice Jordan holding that Code Ann. § 81A-104 (d, 7) should be strictly construed and that the service provided for therein is insufficient if not done literally in accordance with its terms "since notice is the very bedrock of due process.” This "bedrock of due process” requires that á defendant in a dispossessory proceeding be given the same opportunity for notice of the case against him as a defendant in any other civil case. Thus, I cannot agree that a sufficient distinction exists between other civil actions and dispossessory warrant actions that would justify a relaxation of due process safeguards of notice in dispossession cases.
I believe that service by means of tacking on the door of a defendant’s residence is subject to the same constitutional infirmity as Code § 81-202 providing for service by merely leaving the notice at defendant’s residence. In addition to Womble, and the cases cited therein, see Jefferson Fire Ins. Co. v. Brackin, 140 Ga. 637, 638 (79 SE 467), and Piggly-Wiggly Georgia Co. v. May Investing Corp., 189 Ga. 477, 489 (6 SE2d 579, 126 ALR 1465).
I would, therefore, hold the service by tacking provisions of Code Ann. § 61-302 (a) are violative of state and federal due process requirements as I find that tacking notice alone is not "reasonably calculated, under *216all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &c. Co., 339 U. S. 306, 314.
I am authorized to state that Justice Gunter concurs in this dissent.