1993 PLP 657 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S. 17‑‑‑Ex‑ parte ejectment order‑‑‑Setting aside of ‑‑‑Ex parte ejectment order was passed against tenant on ground that tenant failed to appear on date of hearing‑‑‑'tenant was not served personally, but service was effected through pasting of summons on door of his house and thereafter through publication in newspaper‑‑‑Possibility that tenant could not have become aware of same, particularly, in city like Karachi could not be ruled out‑‑‑Ex parte order passed against tenant was set aside and case was remanded to be decided afresh after affording tenant opportunity to defend ejectment application. Munawar Malik for Appellants. N.R. Dubash for Respondent. Date of hearing‑ 12th April, 1992. The respondent has filed an application under section 17 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, against appellant, Tanveer Ahmed, for ejectment from the rented premises in dispute on the grounds of default sP payment of rent, subletting, nuisance and requirement for personally bona fide use. The summons could not be personally served on the appellant No.1, and therefore, were pasted by the bailiff on the door of his house on 27‑11‑1991. The appellant No.1 failed to appear on the date of hearing. Hence the notice was published in Daily Nawa‑i‑Waqt dated 10‑12‑1991. Still the appellant No.1 did not appear. Hence affidavit in ex parte proof was taken from the respondent and the ejectment application was allowed on 18‑1‑1992. The appellant No.1 made an application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P:C. read with section 151, C.P.C. for setting aside the above order but since no stay was granted to him by the learned Controller, therefore, he filed this F.RA. on 27‑2‑1992. The perusal of the order, dated 18‑1‑1992, however, shows that the premises were to be vacated within thirty days, and therefore, necessity of granting separate stay order did not arise. The application for setting aside the ex parte order was presented on 17‑2‑1992 and, therefore, if the same was not disposed of within two days some order should have been passed for staying the proceedings or otherwise: The perusal of the R&P of the learned Controller shows that this application was disposed of on 7‑3‑1992. It was shown therein that the appellant No.1 was properly served and he deliberately failed to appear. From the perusal of the report of a bailiff and the endorsements on the envelopes it I appears that the appellant No.1 was not served personally and that the service was effected through pasting and publication in the newspaper. In such service there is always a possibility that the appellant No.1 may not have become aware of the same, particularly, in a city like Karachi, and in the circumstances, which are prevailing in this city nowadays. I, therefore, convert Katcha Peshi into regular hearing and allow the F.RA. and set aside the impugned order as well as order dated 7‑3‑1992 and remand the case to the learned Controller and direct him to give an opportunity to the appellant No.1 to defend the application. Appellant No.2 will, however, make an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. before the Controller, who will dispose of the same on the inerits. If she is joined a party then she will be permitted to defend the F.RA. Mr. N.R. Dubash has complained that the appellants have not paid the arrears of rent, which have accumulated to Rs.60,

000. The Controller shall take this aspect of the case also in view and will pass proper orders of deposit of tentative rent after giving opportunity to the parties to meet the same. The Controller shall dispose of this case within three months after receipt of R&P. H.B.T./T‑149/K???????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal allowed.