1. This is an appeal which has been filed against the Summary Military Court order, dated 27-10-1977 passed under M. L. O. 20 issued by the Martial Law Administrator, Zone `C' which by virtue of a deeming clause in the Military Courts (Validation of Orders) Ordinance, 1980, has been converted into an Order passed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 with the right to file an appeal under subsection (2) of section 2 of the aforesaid Validations Ordinance. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the respondent filed some application before a Summary Military Court against the appellant, in pursuance of which the order under appeal was passed. In support of the above appeal it has been urged by Mr. Mustafa Lakhani, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was sent for by the Summary Military Court concerned for appearance before it on 27-10-1977 and that on the very day, without furnishing a copy of the respondent's application the ejectment order under appeal was passed. It is an admitted position that at present no record is available with the Summary Military Court. However, in respect of the above proceedings I have seen the application, which was allegedly filed by the respondent a copy of which was placed by the learned counsel for the respondent before this Court. It may be observed that Mr. Mustafa Lakhani, learned counsel for the appellant has denied the factum that the above application was filed before the Military Court. Be that as it may a perusal of the above copy furnished by the learned counsel for the respondent indicates that the respondent had applied for ejectment on the ground that she was a widow having only two daughters without any male member and that his son-in-law, who was married to one of his daughters was suffering from T. B. And that she had been putting with him in a rented premises. The above facts disclosed in the above alleged application, prima facie indicate that there was a case for ejectment.
2. However, since the main question for consideration is as to whether the ejectment order in question was passed in terms of the M. L. O. 20, which provides that the Military Court shall inquire into the case and for that purpose shall issue notice to the parties concerned for appearing before it on the date mentioned in such notice and that the Military Court may examine such oral or documentary evidence in support of the petition or in defence of the opposite party as may be considered necessary. Whereas para. 6 contemplates that the Military Court shall on the conclusion of the proceeding will record its finding. It has been urged by Mr. Lakhani that the above provisions of the M. L. O. 20 were not complied with inasmuch as even the appellant was not given a copy of the application which was filed and, there--fore, he had no opportunity to meet the case of the respondent. Whereas, it has been urged by Mr. Shaikh Hyder, learned counsel for the respondent, that under para. 5 of the M. L. O. It was not obligatory on the part of the Summary Military Court to record any evidence as even oral inquiry is permissible. The contention raised by Mr. Shaikh Hyder may be correct, but in order to hold even an oral inquiry, it is necessary that the other side should be given a fair opportunity to meet the case. In the instant case, it is not the case of the respondent that with the notice of appearance copy of the application was served on the appellant. If that is so, the appellant did not know on 27-10-1977, when he was made to appear before the Summary Military Court, what case he was required to meet and, therefore, be could not have brought any evidence or the documents to prove his defence. It is an admitted position that the respondent was summoned by the Military Court on .21-10-1977 without furnishing a copy of the application and the order of the ejectment was passed on the same day. 1n this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Summary Military Court had complied inter alia with the requirement of para. 5 of the M. L. O. 20 and hence the order under appeal cannot be sustained and, therefore. I allow the appeal and set aside the order with no order as to costs. However, the respondent will be free to file a fresh application under the Sind Rented Premises Ordi--nance, 1979 which also provides an expeditious relief to widows under sec--tion 14.