' This is a rent appeal which has been filed against the ex parte order of ejectment of Rent Controller dated 1st December, 1981 allowing the Rent Case No, 3727 of 1980 filed by the respondent/landlord against the appellant on the ground of default, personal requirement and subletting. It may be observed here that the premises in question are House No, 1711/ 2, Federal 'B'
Area, Karachi. I have heard Mr. Mukhtar Hussain Naqvi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Imran Ahmad, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
2. In the rent case an application was filed on 1st April, 1981 under Order V, rule 20, C.P.C. Which was allowed by order dated 5th April, 1981 ordering that the notice may be published in a newspaper.
The publication was made in the newspaper on 18th April, 1981. An order was passed by the Rent Controller for proceeding ex parte against the appellants. Before the judgment could be passed, the appellant filed an application for setting aside the ex parte proceeding order on the ground that the notices of the case were sent at the wrong address, whereas the address of service of the appellant was available with the respondent. According to the appellant, in a previous rent case, the appellant had given the address of his Advocate as the address for service and, therefore, in the second rent case, that is, the instant rent case, notice should have been sent on the address of the Advocate and that the respondent for reasons best known to her sent the notice of the instant .
Rent case at wrong address. From a perusal of the record of the Rent Controller it appears that the notices were sent at the correct address i,e,, House No, 1711/2, Federal 'B' Area, Karachi, which is the house in question, in respect of which the ejectment application was filed. The stand/plea of the appellant, therefore, that the notices were sent at the wrong address, is wrong. Notices were sent at the correct address. In the affidavit in support of the application for substituted service the respondent/landlady had mentioned that the notices were sent to the appellant at his correct address through bailiff as well as by registered post but the report of the bailiff shows that the notices were received by the male members of the appellant's family. This factual position could not be denied. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the appellants were aware of the pendency of these proceedings.
3. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that only notice was published in the newspaper and neither notice was affixed on the notice board of the Rent Controller nor any notice was affixed at the gate of the disputed premises and as such the order allowing the application for substituted service as well as the order holding the service to be good was liable to be set aside. In the circumstances of the instant case where notices were sent on the correct address and were apparently received by the members of the family of the appellants and there being no denial that such notices were not received coupled with the fact that the notices A had been published in the newspaper, in my view, the order of the Rent Controller holding the service to be good is a valid order and is not liable to be set aside. In the circumstances, the Rent Controller's ex parte order was passed validly and is not liable to be set aside.
4. First Rent Appeal No, 56 of 1982 is dismissed with costs. The appellant is, however, granted time till 31st May, 1983 to vacate the premises.