1. The appellants have challenged in this appeal the ex paste order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller against them on 5-4-1981. The respondent had instituted the ejectment case against the appellants on the allegations that they had failed to pay the rent and have damaged the property in their occupation. Summons were issued to The appellants in the ordinary course as well as by Registered Post A. D. And according to the report of bailiff dated 26-2-81 appellant No. 1 was out of Pakistan in Muscat while Opponent No. 2 had gone to Islamabad at the time the bailiff had gone for affecting service of notices on them. The second report of the bailiff which is dated 12-3-1981 states that on the day he had gone to affect service on the appellants the premises were found locked but at the instance of the respondent who is also a practising senior Advocate he pasted the notice on the outside door of premises: The Rent Controller however did not accept the service by pasting of notice as good and ordered for fresh service of notice to appellant through registered post A. D. On 14-3-1981 and adjourned the case to 4-4-81. It appears that no fresh notice for 4-4- 1981 was issued to appellants as directed by the Rent Controller on 14-3-1981 as in the meantime the respondent moved an application before the Rent Controller praying that service of notice on appellants may held on the basis of the endorsement of Postal authorities on the envelop containing notices. The Rent Controller accepted the application of respon--dent and held the service of notices on appellants as good and anti-dated the hearing of case without notice to the appellants from 4-4-81 to 21-3-81. On 21-3-81 the matter was however adjourned to 24-3-81 for want of time. On 24-3-81 the case was ordered to be proceeded ex parte against the appellants and hearing was fixed on 26-3-81. On 26-3-81 the matter was put of to 2; 4-81 for affidavit of evidence by the respondent. On 2-4-81 the Presiding Officer was on leave and therefore the matter was again adjourned to 4-4-81. On 4-4-81 the counsel for the appellants appeared before the Rent Controller and gave an undertaking to file vakalatnama whereupon the case was adjourned to 5- 4-81. On 5-4-81 the Rent Controller instead of allowing an opportunity to appellant to defend the case passed the order directing ejectment of appellant. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the order of the Rent Controller directing ex parte proceedings on 24-3-81 against the appellants was an illegal order in view of the fact that on 14-3-1981 he had already ordered for issuance of fresh notice to appellants for 4-4-1981. Mr. Zulfiqar Ali, the learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the service of notice by pasting a copy thereof on the outer door of the premises occupied by the appellants should be held to be a good service and in any case there being an endorse--ment by the postal authority on the envelop stating that the addressee had refused to accept the service it was a good service and therefore the ex parte proceedings were rightly ordered against the appellants. It is an admitted position in the case that on 14-3-81 when the matter was called before the Rent Controller the service of notice by pasting a copy thereof on the outer door of the premises occupied by the appellants was not held to b good service and fresh notices were ordered to be issued for 4-4-81. In these circumstances it was hardly open to the Rent Controller to have anti-dated the hearing of the case and proceeded ex parte against the appellants after having adjourned it for service of notice on appellants for 4-4- 1981. In any case on 4-4-1981 which was the date fixed for appearance of appellants before the Rent Controller, when a counsel appeared on their behalf and gave undertaking to file vakalatnama there was hardly any justification to proceed ex parte against the appellants The Rent Controller instead of allowing the appellants opportunity to defend the case adjourned the hearing of the case to 5-4-81, only to pass ex parte ejectment order against the appellants. In these circumstances I am satisfied that the ex parse ejectment order against the appellants was passed by the Controller on insufficient grounds. This appeal is accordingly accepted and the ex parte ejectment .Order of Rent Controller is set aside. However, in order to avoid any delay in the proceedings I direct that the appellants shall appear before the Court of Rent Controller on 22-11-81 to file their written statement and thereafter the Rent Controller shall proceed further in the case in accordance with the law. There will be no order as to costs.