1. ' The appellant is the landlord of the premises in dispute and had filed ejectment proceedings against the respondent in the Court of Vth Rent Controller, Karachi under section 13 of, the repealed West Pakistan. Urban Rent Restriction, Ordinance, 1959. 'The notice issued to the- respondent by the learned Controller was returned by the bailiff on 7th. January, 1979 with a report that upon reaching the house where the respondent was residing on the pointing of the appellant, he found it locked. It was stated that the inquiries made by the bailiff revealed that the house has been found locked since the last six months. The report also bore the names of two witnesses immediately thereafter upon appellant's application under Order V, rule 20, C. P. C. The learned Controller on I 1 th February, 1979 passed orders that the respondent be served through substituted service by way of affixation on the notice board of the Court and outer door of the premises. The notice issued was accordingly affixed on the outer door of the respondent's house and was passed on the Court notice board, report of which was submitted by the bailiff on 19th February, 1979. The case was called up in the Court on 28th February, 1979 when the respondent was found absent and ex parte order of ejectment was passed by the learned Rent Controller. Subsequently in May, 1979 the appellant filed execution proceedings in which also after one notice in the ordinary manner returned unserved, the notice was served by affixation. A writ of possession was thereafter issued and according to the appellant he was given possession of the premises on 31st May, 1979.
2. ' The respondent then filed an appeal which was allowed and the order of ejectment has been set aside by the impugned judgment dated 4th September, 1980 by the IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi who has remanded the case for fresh decision to the learned Controller. The learned First Appellate Court was influenced by the consideration that the substituted service was ordered by the learned Controller only after the return of one notice unserved. He further pointed out that even, according to the endorsement of the bailiff the house was pointed out by the appellant which was contrary to rule 105 of the Sind Civil Court Rules. Additionally the Rent Controller does not seem to have examined the process server as the learned lower Court of Appeal did not find any affidavit of the process served on record. Upon these considerations the learned Court below reached the conclusion that there was no material to indicate that the respondent was avoiding service of notice which was a prerequisite for resorting to substituted service.
3. After hearing the learned counsel and perusing the reports of the bailiff I am in agreement with the view taken by the learned Court below. As held in Sirajuddin v. Iqbal Begum the provisions of Order V, rule 20, C. P. C. Or for that matter the provisions of rule 17 cannot be resorted to after making one solitary attempt to serve the defendant. The provisions are apparently penal in nature and as such to be strictly construed if any resort is taken thereto by Controller, as the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to such proceedings by it own force. Section 13(2) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance embodies expressly the requirements of the rule of natural justice and an order of ejectment can be passed against a tenant by the mandate of the statutely "if the Controller after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied that on the grounds specified in the Ordinance the tenant is liable to be ejected" Law is favourably, inclined towards adjudication on merits. If the case of the appellant is that the house was found locked since some time, before institution of the proceedings, it was meaningless to effect service through affixation and perhaps the necessary object could have been achieved by service through publication.
4. ' In any case I am not satisfied that in the facts of this case the appellant has proved that the respondent was keeping out to avoid service.
5. ' No other point has been urged in support of this appeal.
6. ' For the foregoing reasons there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. PLD 1968 Lah. 639