1. ' This appeal has been filed under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, against the order of the Rent Controller dated 31st July, 1980. The Officer has raised the objection that the appeal is barred by limitation and that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable. The learned counsel states that the impugned order of ejectment was passed against the appellant without effecting service on him before the Controller and, therefore, the appellant had no knowledge of the passing of the ex parte order of ejectment, his submission is that in these circumstances the period of limitation would commence running from the date of knowledge by the appellant and not from the date of the order. For this proposition he has placed reliance on a judgment reported in PLD 1970 Lah. 6 which is a case relating to an appeal under section 18 of the Displaced Persons Act. The position, however, is, that according to section 20 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance the Controller has been conferred the power of a Civil Court under the C.P.C. Inter cilia, in the matter of summoning of the respondent. It, therefore, seems to me prima facie that the appellant had a remedy 'before the Controller if the notice was not duly served on him in the proceedings.
2. Learned counsel informs me that the appellant has made such an application for setting aside the ex parte order before the Controller which is pending decision, but according to the counsel section 19, subsection (2) has taken away the power of the Controller to set aside an ex parte order of ejectment once passed by him and, therefore, his application for setting aside the ex parte order is foredoomed to dismissal. I, however, feel that the question whether the Controller has no power to recall an ex parte order passed against a tenant even when he is satisfied that the notice of the proceedings was not duly served on him, is not free from difficulty on the language of section 19 (2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. It seems that the section contemplates the passing of ex parte order if it is found by the Controller that "the notice has been served, but the respondent has failed A to file his reply". If, therefore, the Controller has the jurisdiction to go into the question of service even after the passing of the ex parte order under section 19 (2) it will be appropriate for this Court to allow, in the first instance the Controller to examine the question. I would accordingly defer the consideration of the question of admission of this appeal until the decision of the application by the Controller for setting aside the ex parte order.
3. ' The learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that the respondent has already filed execution proceedings of the impugned order and requests that in the meantime stay of the execution may be granted. The request is reasonable and accordingly I would order stay of the execution of the impugned order until the decision of the pending application by the Controller. The learned Controller is further directed to dispose of the application at the earliest. Adjourned to a date in Office.