1. ' This is a second appeal against the order, dated 8th September, 1980 passed by the learned VIIIth Additional District Judge, Karachi, in Rent Appeal No,407/78, allowing the respondent's appeal and remanding the case to the learned Rent Controller, Karachi, The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the present appellant filed Rent Application No,606/78 on 28th January,1978 for ejectment inter alia on the ground of default. The learned Rent Controller as usual ordered notice for 15th February,1978. It seems that on 15th February,1978 the present appellant filed an application for substituted service alongwith a supporting affidavit of his attorney, para. 3 of the supporting affidavit contains the following averments:-- "3. That the opponent is keeping out of the way for the purpose to avoid service and there is no other method to service him except through substituted services."
2. ' It further seems that the Rent Controller granted the above application by one word "application".
3. The above notice was published in the Daily Urdu Newspaper "AGHAZ", dated 20th February, 1978.
4. After an ex parte ejectment order was passed on 30th March,1978. The respondent being aggrieved by the above order filed aforesaid rent appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karachi, by his order dated 8th September,1980. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present second appeal.
5. 2.(a) In support of the above appeal, Mr.Noor Muhimmad, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that since it was not possible to effect service on the respondent by ordinary mode of service, the learned Rent Controller was justified in granting the appellant's application for substituted service. In furtherance of his contention, he has pointed out that admittedly according to respondent's own showing she had gone to Calcutta to attend her ailing husband and that she remained therefor quite considerable period. It has also been pointed out by him that the notice under section 13-A of the late West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance sent by the appellant to the respondent for intimating her that he had purchased the property in question, was returned undelivered with the remarks "Makan bund".
(b) On the ether hand Mr.H.A.Rehmani, learned counsel for the respondent has urged that it was incumbent upon the learned Rent Controller to have satisfied itself that on the basis of material before it, the service by ordinary mode was not possible and that this power was to be exercised cautiously and sparingly.
3. I have noticed that the averment contained in the above quoted para. 3 of the supporting affidavit to the effect that the respondent was avoiding the service, was incorrect as admittedly, the respondent was not in Pakistan at the relevant time. It is evident that the learned Rent Controller has not applied his mind to the fact of the case at all, which is also manifest from the one word order passed by him. A request for substituted service is not generally granted on the first date of service of notice.
6. ' I am inclined to hold that on the basis of the averment contained in the above quoted para. 3 of the supporting affidavit, the learned Rent Controller could not have passed the order of the substituted service. The learned first appellate Court has exercised the discretion properly in allowing the appeal and remanding the case to the learned Rent Controller. I, therefore, do not see any force in the above second appeal and, hence, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. The Rent Controller is directed to finalise the case within 6 months from the receipt of a copy of this order. .