1986 PLP (2) (CLC)

Muhammad Yaseen Azad for Appellant. Muhammad Mustafa for Respondent. Dates of hearing: 19th and 20th April, 1983. This is a First Rent Appeal filed by the Appellant/ Tenant against the ex parte ejectment order dated 10‑5‑1981, passed by the learned Rent Controller allowing Rent Case No.6861 of 1980, filed by the respondent /landlord and ordering ejectment of the appellant. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Yaseen Azad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Mustafa, learned counsel for the respondent. The case of the appellant is that he was never served with the notice of the ejectment case filed by the Respondent and he was not aware of the proceedings and that he only came to know about the filing of the ejectment case and the passing of the ejectment order dated 10‑5‑1981 on 17‑5‑1981 from one of the Shop‑keepers that the Rent Controller had passed the ejectment order which shop‑keeper had been given this news by the son of the respondent and thereafter he applied for certified copies and filed this appeal. R. and P. of the Rent Case has been perused. The ejectment case was filed before the Rent Controller on 30‑11‑1980 and notice was ordered to be issued to the appellant for 30‑12‑1980. As the notice was not served fresh notice was ordered to be issued for 31‑1‑1981. On 31‑1‑1981 also notice was not served and fresh notice was ordered to be issued for 28‑2‑1981. It may be observed that on 26‑1‑1981, an application under Order V, rule 20 of C . P. C . had been filed by the respondent for substituted service but the application was not granted and the learned Rent Controller passed an order on the said application that notice be served through another bailiff and by pasting on the Shop in question and through Registered A/D. Notice was not served and on 28‑2‑1981 another application under Order V, rule 20 of C.P.C., was filed for service on the appellant by publication in any newspaper. This application was granted and notice was published in daily "Leader". On 21‑3‑1981, the respondent was present and the appellant was called absent and the case was put of to 31‑3‑1981 for orders. On 31‑3‑1981 Rent Controller was on leave and the case was adjourned to 4‑4‑1981. On 4‑4‑1981, respondent was present and the appellant was called absent. Service was held good and it was ordered by the Rent Controller that the case would proceed ex parte against the appellant. It was adjourned for hearing on 16‑4‑1981. On 16‑4‑1981 the respondent was present and he requested for further time and the case was adjourned to 29‑4‑1981 for ex, parte proof. On 29‑4‑1981 another request for time was made by the respondent and the case was adjourned to 4‑5‑1981. On 4‑5‑1981 the respondent filed affidavit of ex parte proof and the case was then put off for orders. As observed earlier, the ejectment order was passed on 10‑5‑1981. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the reports of the bailiff show that the shop in question was always found closed but no endorsement to that effect was obtained from any independent person of the area and only an endorsement of respondent was obtained. If this had been the only evidence on record regarding service of notice, there might have been some substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. However, I find that the report of the postman in connection with the notice sent through Registered A/D is to the effect that postman had gone on several days but the shop was found closed. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the postman should have been examined by the learned Rent Controller. In my view it was not necessary for the learned Rent Controller to examine the postman. It may be observed that in the memo of the present appeal the report of the postman has not been challenged. The result is that the endorsement of the postman that the shop was found closed on all the days when the postman had gone to deliver the registered notice is admitted by the appellant to be correct. In view of the plaintiff's reports and the report of the postal authorities, I find no illegality, in the facts and the circumstance of the present case, in the order of Rent Controller granting the application for substituted service. It may also be observed that in the ejectment application which had been filed on 30‑11‑1980, the ground was that rent had not been paid since May, 1979. According to the appellant, he started depositing rent in Miscellaneous Rent Case in January, 1981, that is, after the filing of the ejectment case. It appears that after coming to know of the filing of the ejectment case, the Miscellaneous Rent Application was filed in January, 1981 by the appellant. The explanation given by the appellant regarding his knowledge on 17‑5‑1981 about the passing of the ejectment order only 7 days earlier also does not appear to be plausible. If it is to be believed that the respondent was taking care that the appellant should not come to know about the filing of the ejectment case and then passing of the ejectment order, it appears strange that the son of the respondent himself should go and inform others that the ex part ejectment order had been passed. I find no substance in the present First Rent Appeal. In my view the Rent Controller correctly held service on the appellant as good. First Rent Appeal No.297 of 1981 is dismissed with no order as to costs. The appellant is, however, granted time till 31‑7‑1983 to vacate the premises. H . B . T?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed