The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26-2-1976 passed by Mian Ghulam Ahmad, Add]. District Judge, Multan, whereby he set aside the judgment dated 24-1-1973 passed by Mr. Jahangir Ali Sheikh, Rent Controller and remanded the case, to the Rent Controller who was directed to strike the issues on merits and dispose of the ejectment petition finally.
2. The facts necessary for deciding this appeal are that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner found the respondent as being entitled to the transfer of Shop No. 320 and issued a P. T. O. The respondent issued a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 on 11-12-1962 under Registered Post Acknowledgement Due and late instituted proceedings for eviction of the appellant from the shop in question.
3. On a revision by the appellant the learned Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner set aside the order of transfer in favour of the respondent whereupon he withdrew the ejectment petition.
The property was eventually transferred to the respondent on 7-1-1963 and he instituted the present eject--ment proceedings before the Rent Controller on 24-2-1965. On the pleadings of the parties the Rent Controller framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether a valid notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1558 was served upon the respondent No. 1 ? Q. P. P.
(2) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties ? D. P. P.
(3) Whether the application is barred under section 14 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1969? O. P. R.
(4) Relief
4. The Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 against the respondent hold--ing that he had failed to establish that a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 had been served on the appellant. He, however, answered issue No. 2 in favour of the respondent holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant did exist between the parties. Issue No. 3 was also decided against the appellant. In the result be dismissed the ejectment petition. It appears that the appellant failed to rely on the notice dated 11-2-1962 or its acknowledgment receipt before the learned Rent Controller. However, on appeal the learned District Judge, Multan by his order dated 24-9-1973 (further clarified on 5-9-1974) allowed the respondent to lead additional evidence and also allowed the appellant to lead evidence in rebuttal. The respondent then tendered in evidence a copy of notice dated 11-12-1962 which was placed on record as Exh. A. W. 2/1 and its postal acknowledgment receipt Exh. A. W. 2/2. The appellant denied his signatures on the postal acknowledgment. The appellant and the respondent examined handwriting experts to support their respective points of view. The handwriting expert examined by the respondent stated that in his view the signatures on Exh. A. W. 2/2 were not that of appellant. The learned Addl. District Judge following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ghulam Mohyuddin v. The State (1973 SCMR 271), ignored the opinion of the experts.
5. The learned Addl. District Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent had in the earlier ejectment petition dated 3-4-1963 stated that a notice dated 11-12-1962 under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensa--tion and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 had been sent to the present appellant under Registered Post who in his written statement Exh. P. 4 admitted that the notice has been served on him. The learned Addl. District Judge held that as the notice under section 30 was shown to have been served on the tenant followed by litigation between the appellant and the respondent before the Settlement Authorities which had the effect of suspension of the notice, such proceedings would not render such notice infructuous and that a fresh notice to the tenant under section 30 would not be necessary if the transferee eventually succeeds in having the property transferred to him. In the result the learned Addl. District Judge reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller on issue No. 1. He relied, upon. Abdul Saeed v, Abdul Salam Farooqui (PLD 1971 Kar.
217), which appeals to lend support to his view.
6. Before me the learned counsel for the appellant contended that although the appellant had, in his previous written statement Exh. P. 4 admit--ted that be had received a notice under section 30 the respondent had failed to show that it was the same notice. In the second place it was contended that the postal acknowledgement receipt Exh. A. W 2/2 was a doubtful document inasmuch as the date of the post mark on it was not legible and it did not bear the registered number or the date on which the notice was served on the appellant. The argument to my mind is without any merit. The respondent had very clearly mentioned in his ejectment petition dated 3-4- 1963 that notice dated 11-12-1962 under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 had been served on the appellant through Registered Post anal the appellant in his written statement Exh. P. 4 admitted the receipt of his notice. The original notice under section 30 served on the appellant would be in his possession and for that reason it was for him to have established that the notice received by him was different from Exh. A. W. 2/1 or that he had been served otherwise than through registered post. The respondent cannot be blamed for the illegible date in the postal mark on the acknowledgement Exh. A. W. 2/2 which appears to be the acknowledgement for a registered letter forwarded through a lawyer from Multan. The notice Exh. A. W. 2/1 bears the same name and address of the counsel as that given in Exh. A. W. 2/2. In the context of this fact I am inclined to agree with the learned Addl. District Judge that the service of notice under section 30 was proved and that the trial Court was not right in deciding this issue against the respondent. The order remanding the case to the learned Rent Controller appears to be justified and does not call for any interference.