1. ' The respondent filed an ejectment application against one Muhammad Mushtaq a tenant of Shop No, 1 on the ground floor. It is an admitted position that the respondent resides on the first floor of the same premises. The ejectment application was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent and also that the respondent requires the premises for his bona fide personal need. The notice of the ejectment application was issued by the Controller several times but the bailiff reported that the shop was closed and order for pasting it was passed which was accordingly done but no witness was available to witness this pasting. An application under Order V, rule 20, C.P.C. Was filed by the respondent which was granted and the notice was published on 15th July, 1984 for hearing on 22nd September,1982. As the appellant did not appear an ex parte order for ejectment was passed on the same date. The respondent filed an execution application on 4th January, 1983 and notice was issued to the appellant. The bailiff reported that at the time of service of writ of possession' one person was present and resisted the execution proceeding, locked up the shop and went away. The writ of possession issued was returnable on 7th February,1983 however on 2nd February, 1983 an application under Order IX, rule 13 was filed with a supporting affidavit of Zareef the appellant No,
2. It was stated that Muhammad Mushtaq and Zareef are tenants of this shop and Muhammad Mushtaq has gone away to Saudi Arabia on a temporary job. It was pleaded that the notice of ejectment application) was never served on the appellant and that the ex parte order has been obtained by manipulating false report from the bailiff. The notice of this application was issued to the respondent for 6th February,1983. On that date as bailiff had already returned the writ of possession unexecuted the learned Controller took up both the matters, viz. The consideration of the execution application with the application filed by respondent for police aid and the application of the appellant for setting aside the ex parte order of ejectment. The learned Controller by order dated 6th February, 1983 dismissed the appellant's application by the following order. "Heard the parties Advocates. I dismiss this application having no merits in this application."
2. ' By another order of the same date after recording the statement of the bailiff the learned Controller granted police aid and permission to break open the lock.
3. ' Mr.Umer Qureshi the learned counsel has contended that the orders passed by the learned Controller are illegal as they were passed without notice and without applying his mind to the facts of the case. It has also been contended that the counter-affidavit to the application was filed which is on record but copy was not supplied to him. The main order of ejectment has been assailed on the ground that the appellants were not served with the notice. The learned counsel has contended that the appellant's shop was opened regularly, every day, which is run by the appellant No, 2 and the bailiff's reports are false and fraudulent. So far the main order of ejectment is concerned its legality can be considered only after the application for setting aside this order has been decided. No doubt the Controller has passed the order but it is so short, brief and without any reasoning that it does not give the impression Of being a judicial order or passed after due application of mind and consideration of the plea raised before him. Mr. Asghar Hussain the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that Mushtaq the tenant is admittedly out of Pakistan and Zareef is not a tenant and has no locus standi to file the application or to file this appeal. In view of this objection which was taken in the counter-affidavit also, the question for consideration was whether Muhammad Zareef is a tenant as alleged by him and whether he was authorised by Muhammad Mushtaq to look after his business and to defend him in these proceedings. Finding on these issues are material for the purpose of determining the application for setting aside the ex parte order. In any case if any allegation is made by a party it is the duty of the Controller to give due consideration to it unless on the face of it, it is completely false, contradictory and illegal. In the present case Muhammad Zareef has alleged that he is a joint tenant and that he was looking after business as a partner of Muhammad Mushtaq. These facts should have been considered by the learned. Controller even to ascertain the maintainability of the application filed before him. The order passed by him does not show that even the allegation made by the appellant or objections raised by the respondent were at all considered.
4. ' Mr.Asghar Hussain the learned counsel has contended that the appeal is not maintainable because Mohammad Zareef has no locus standi to file this appeal. It is correct that on the basis of allegations made in the ejectment application by the respondent, Mohammad Zareef does not feature any where but for purposes of application for setting aside the order he has alleged that he is a tenant with Mushtaq and further that he is looking after his business as his partner. As these allegations have not been considerdd and no finding has been given on these facts he should be deemed to be aggrieved party within the meaning of section 21 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance and therefore in my view the appeal is maintain able.
5. ' The next objection seems to be that in the prayer clause the appellants have not sought any relief against the order passed on 6th February, 1982 dismissing the application for setting aside the ejectment order. Mr. Umer Qureshi Advocate has pointed out to the averment made in the memo of appeal and a ground where the legality of this order has been challenged. Mr.Umer seems to be under the impression that the prayer for setting aside the ejectment order will amount to reversal of the order dated 6th February, 1983. The learned counsel was labouring under a wrong impression. The intention of the appellant all along has been to challenge both the orders. The prayer clause contains a general prayer also which in the facts and circumstances of the case can be pressed in service to seek relief against the order dated 6th February, 1983. The order dated 6th February,1983 passed by the Controller dismissing the application for setting aside the ex parte order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Controller to decide the application filed by the appellant. The parties will be entitled to raise all such objections that may be permissible under law including locus standi of Mohammad Zareef to appear before the Controller and defend the case. If the learned Controller comes to the conclusion that the order passed on 22nd September,1982 was illegal the order dated 6th February, 1983 will automatically vanish. In the circumstances the case is remanded for hearing of the application by the learned Controller. The parties should appear before the Controller on 20th March, 1983. No notice shall be issued to the parties by the Controller as the learned counsel for the parties have noted this date. R be sent to the Controller immediately who should decide the application for setting aside the order dated 22nd September,1982, before 31st July, 1984.