1. ' The above appeal was called thrice times since morning, but still neither the learned Advocate for the respondent nor respondent is present. In addition to this, there is no request for adjournment made on behalf of the respondent and/or his Advocate, and as such I decided to hear the above appeal on merits. The learned Advocate for the appellants submitted, that the learned Rent Controller rejected appellants, application under Order XXII, rule 3 read with section 151, C.P.C, on the grounds, that the ejectment application did not survive the death of the original applicant, as it was filed under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, in spite of the fact, that the original ejectment application was filed under section 15 of the said Ordinance and admitted as such according to this endorsement, on the original ejectment application.
2. ' The learned Advocate for the appellants have pointed out to me the original ejectment application in the original Rent Case No, 391/80 and the office endorsement thereon, clearly shows, that it was admitted under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, although the ground available under section 14 of the said Ordinance was also pleaded, in the said application.
3. In view of this admitted position on record, the dismissal of appellants' application under Order XXII, rule 3 read with section 151, C.P.C. Vide order, dated 19th August, 1981 of the learned Rent Controller cannot be sustained. It is now established law, that the Provisions of Order XXII, C. P. C. Are applicable to the rent proceedings and since the original ejectment application was admitted under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, in my opinion the appellants' application under Order XXII, rule 3 read with section 151, C. P. C. Was maintainable and ought to have been allowed by the learned trial Court, as ejectment of the respondent was sought on various grounds, including one for default.
4. In view of my above conclusions I allow the above appeal and set aside the impugned order, dated 19th August, 1981 and allow the appellants' application under Order XXII, rule 4 read with section 151, C.P.C. and remand back the case to the Court of the learned Rent Controller in question for disposal on merits, in accordance with law, after permitting' the appellants to be substituted as applicants, in place of original applicant.
5. ' Since the learned Advocate for the respondent is called absent, I passed no order as to cost.