' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--- Sohail Hameed Butt, the petitioner, through the present petition, seeks leave to appeal against the order, dated 19-6-2007, whereby learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore dismissed petitioner's appeal (F.A.O. No,172 of 2007) and affirmed the order, dated 5-6-2007 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Walton Cantt., Lahore (Rent Controller).
2. The respondent filed the petition under section 17 of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (hereinafter called as Act) before the learned Rent Controller, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the disputed house on the grounds of default in payment of rent since April, 2004, at the rate of Rs,30,000 per month, and for her personal bona fide use and occupation. The learned Rent Controller issued notice to the petitioner for 12-12-2006, which could not be served due to non- availability of the petitioner on the address given in, the ejectment petition. On 12-12-2006 notices were ordered to be issued through substituted service by way of affixation, registered A.D. And through publication in the newspapers. Despite resorting to various methods of service, as noted above, the petitioner remained absent and resultantly, the learned Rent Controller after finding that the petitioner has been served through notice by affixation, registered post A.D. And publication in the newspaper i.e, Nawa-i-Waqt, of its print dated 22-12-2006, proceeded to pass ex parte order against the petitioner vide order, date,d 9-1-2007. Whereafter the ex parte evidence of the respondent comprising Mazhar Yousaf, (P.W.1) and Muhammad Khalid (P.W.2) was recorded and ultimately the ejectment petition was accepted by the learned Rent Controller vide order, dated 8- 2-2007 directing the petitioner to. Hand over the possession of the disputed house to the respondent within 30 days. The petitioner, on 7-3-2007, filed the application under Order IX, rule 13 read with section 151, C.P.C. For setting aside the ejectment order, dated 8-2-2007, inter alia, pleading that he was never served in the ejectment petition; the report on notices is fictitious and illegal; and that he got the knowledge of ex parte order on 13-2-2007 from his cousin. The respondent resisted the said application through reply and the learned Rent Controller after coming to the conclusion that the notices were properly served upon the petitioner, he was in the knowledge of pendency of the ejectment proceedings and he deliberately failed to appear before the Court proceeded to dismiss the application, vide order, dated 5-6-2007. The petitioner assailed the said decision before the Lahore High Court at Lahore through the appeal under section 24 of the Act, which was however, dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge in Chamber, vide order, dated 19-6-2007, hence the present petition.
3.Learned counsel has vociferously contended that the learned High Court has committed grave legal error, while dismissing the first appeal in limine without summoning record of the learned Rent Controller; no notice was served upon the petitioner; the respondent committed fraud and forgery in serving the notice upon a fictitious person and that the signature of the petitioner on acknowledgement due were forged and fabricated. Learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting both the orders, has stated that the petitioner was served through, notice which was affixed at his place of abode, notice through registered post was received by him and in any case, the petitioner deemed to have been served through publication in the newspaper. He has added that now the petitioner is no more in possession of the disputed house.
4. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and examined the record of the case. It is true that section 24(3) of the Act, does provide that "the High Court shall, after perusing the record of the case and giving opportunity of hearing to parties" make an appropriate order but it is equally true that it has nowhere been even briefly remarked in the Act that the High Court, while embarking on an appeal, filed under section 24 of the Act, is necessarily required to summon record of the learned Rent Controller. It has been held by this Court in various judgments that even Regular First Appeal, could be dismissed in B limine. Refer to the cases of Muhammad Ibrahim v. Mst. Irshad Begum PLD 2002 SC 720, Ashiq Ali and others v. Mst. Zamir Fatima and others PLD 2004 SC 10 and Hameed Ahmad v. Ghulab Khan 2006 SCM R 895. Besides, we find from the judgment of the High Court that the petitioner annexed certified copies of the record with the appeal, which were duly examined by the High Court at the time of deciding the appeal. It appears that the learned Single Judge being conscious of the said requirement of "perusing the record", envisaged in section 24(3) of the Act, made it a point to note in his judgment that "learned counsel has annexed the certified copies of the record with this F.A.O. Which have been examined with his assistance". Learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied that the petitioner did not annex the C copies of the record with the appeal. Admittedly, when the petitioner annexed certified copies of the record along with the appeal and those were duly examined by the learned Judge in Chamber, as noted in the judgment, at the time of deciding the appeal, then to our mind the provisions of section 24(3) of the Act were sufficiently complied with in letter and spirit. Under the circumstances, we feel that the High Court by not summoning the record of the learned Rent Controller has neither committed any illegality nor any prejudice was caused to the petitioner. Thus, first contention of the learned counsel has no force and stands repelled.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate from the available record that how and in which manner fraud or forgery was committed by the respondent in effecting service upon the petitioner except to state that registered notice issued on 18-1-2007 could not be served on 19-1-2007. We find from the record that the learned Rent Controller after entertaining the ejectment petition issued notice to the petitioner for 12-12-2006, however, it was reported by the Process Server that the daughter of the petitioner refused to receive the notice on the pretext that the petitioner is away to Islamabad. Thereafter, on 12-12-2006, the learned Rent Controller directed that notices be issued through substituted service by way of affixation, registered A.D. And through publication in two newspapers. According to the report of Process-Server a copy of notice was affixed on the abode of the petitioner. It may be noted that the petitioner has not disputed the address furnished by the respondent in the ejectment petition was not correct or notices were sent on wrong addresses. All the notices through ordinary process, by registered post and through publication were sent on the same address i.e, 271-A, Street No,6, Cavalry Ground, Walton Lahore Cantt. Thus, the petitioner was served through all the modes of service provided under the law and orders, dated 9-1-2007, whereby the petitioner was proceeded ex parte, and 5-6-2007, through which petitioner's application for setting aside order, dated 9-1-2007 was dismissed, are not open to any exception.
6. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the copy of Postal Receipt No,593 shows that the notice was issued to the petitioner and the A.D. Receipt is available on record. Additionally, the publication was made in the newspaper Nawa-i-Waqt, of its print, dated 22-12-2006, which newspaper undoubtedly has a nationwide circulation. Thus, to our mind the petitioner was properly and legally served through all the possible ways of service provided under the law and no fraud or forgery was committed by the respondent. Moreover, petitioner's plea about knowledge of ex parte order through his cousin as narrated in the application also does not sound to any reason.
7. In the above perspective, we have examined the order, dated 19-6-2007 and are of the firm view that the learned Judge in Chamber did not commit any legal error while rendering the order in question. Rather, petitioner's appeal was rightly decided after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects of the case.
8. For foregoing reasons, the present petition is devoid of any merits, thus, stands dismissed and leave to appeal refused.