1. ' This appeal under section 21 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was filed by Syed Ashraf All against the order of eviction passed by learned VII Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi on 26th October,1981. The facts of the present application are that Syed Ashraf Ali (hereinafter to be referred as appellant) is tenant of office rooms 2,3 8 4 situated on first Floor of Plot No,423-424/1, Central Commercial Area, PECHS, Karachi belonging to Abdul Rashid (hereinafter to be referred as the respondent) and rent of Rs,1,300 per month was agreed between the parties. It is alleged that appellant wilfully failed to pay rent of the premises since May, 1980. In view of default respondent through his Advocate sent notice but appellant did not reply. This rent case under section 15 of Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was filed on 4th July,1981 before the Rent Controller. The appellant before the Rent Controller could not be served by ordinary process, therefore notice to him was published in daily 'LEADER' on 13th September,1981. Notice under registered Post A.D. Was also sent to him which was returned undelilvered. Again notice was affixed on the premises of the respondent as well as Court notice Board. Finally service on the respondent was held good and rent case proceeded against the appellant ex parte. Respondent filed an affidavit as ex parte proof wherein he stated that appellant, failed to pay the rent from May, 1980 to October, 1981 and also refused to vacate the premises. He further stated that premises in question are required for the use of his family members. His entire evidence- went unchallenged without rebuttal. The learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application under section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and directed the appellant to handover vacant possession of the premises to respondent within one month. This ejectment order was passed on 26th October,1981. The appellant presented this appeal against the impugned order on 18th March, 1982 after lapse of about more than 4 months. The appellant on 27th February, 1982 submitted an application before the Rent Controller for setting aside the ex parte ejectment order which was dismissed and after that he filed this appeal. I have heard Mr. Nisar All Advocate for appellant and Mr.Muniruddin Alvi, for the respondent. Mr. Nisar All contended that appellant had no knowledge of the rent proceedings and that the ex parte order is contrary to law as the service was not proper. He has further taken the ground that on 16th February, 1982, one Mansoor H. Raja friend of appellant informed him that the respondent visited the office and threatened him to get the same premises vacated very soon, and at that time he only come to know about the rent application. Mr. Nisar All has referred to cases reported in 1982 CLC 1314; PLD 1982 Lah. 201; PLD 1964 - SC 97. The cases referred to are distinguishable from the present case, because in the instant case all the formalities in connection with the service were complied with. The appellant is admittedly resident of Karachi and the premises mentioned herein were in his possession. Therefore he cannot say that the service is bad in law. Moreover publication was also made in the newspapers therefore this ground is not available to appellant. It is also admitted fact that from May, 1980 till today he has not paid rent to the respondent and no proof whatsoever has been produced that he ever tried or made an attempt to pay the rent which was his responsibility. Mr.Muniruddin Alvi has submitted that appellant wilfully avoided and failed to pay the rent therefore respondent was compelled to file the rent application. He has further contended that appeal is time-barred and the premises are required by respondent for personal use. He has referred to 1981 SCMR 93; 1982 SCMR 358 and 1982 SCMR 1000. As stated above it is clear that appellant had not paid rent from May, 1980 and his contention is that he had paid Rs,15,600 one year's rent as deposit which was lying with respondent. If benefit of this period is given to appellant even then there is continuous default from April, 1981 till today. He has not made any attempt to pay the rent. On this aspect I refer to .1981 SCMR 93, wherein Supreme Court decided that "it is duty of the tenant to pay or at least tender the rent to the landlord and he cannot be allowed to plead that landlord did not make any effort to collect the rent.
2. ' The case reported in 1982 CLC 913 is also clear on point of default. The second point which has come to my notice is belated appeal. Impugned order of ejection was passed on 26th October,1981 and this appeal has been filed on 18th March,1982 after a lapse of 4 months and limitation period prescribed is 30 days, the explanation that appellant came to know on 16th February,1982 has not been substantiated. According to him his friend Manzoor Hussain Raja informed him about the rent proceedings. He filed application before Rent Controller on 17th February, 1982 for setting aside ejectment order but no affidavit of his friend who informed him was filed, with that application. It has been held in cases reported 1982 CLC 2025 and PLD 1981 Kar. 76 that section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to the appellants filed under Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.
3. ' Respondent in para. 7 of his affidavit-in-evidence have stated that premises are required for his personal use of family members. This evidence has gone unchallanged.
4. ' In view of the above discussion I do not find any merit in the appeal. I therefore dismiss the appeal No,FRA 354 of 1982 and maintain the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 26th October,1981. I however allow the appellant one month's time to vacate the premises.