' This first rent appeal has been filed challenging the ex parte order of ejectment, dated 25-11-1980 passed by the learned Rent Controller allowing Rent Case No. 2390 of 1980 filed by the respondent/landlady and the order passed in execution issuing writ of possession, whereunder the appellant was ejected from the premises in dispute with police aid, which was granted by the Rent Controller to the respondent. I have heard Mr. Fazal Bhoy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. M. Mahmudi, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the appellant had absolutely no knowledge about the institution of the case of ejectment, as at no point of time any notice or other process was served upon him nor any effort was made for service of notice on him and that on 22-8-1981 in his absence, the writ of possession was executed and the appellant was thrown out of the premises in question. The main question, that requires consideration, is whether the appellant had been served in accordance with law'. R & P of this case had been called and have found from a perusal of the R & P that none of the reports of the bailiff is available on the record. No registered acknowledgement due card is available on the record to show that the server through registered post had been effected. Even the notice/summons are not available on the record.
There is no evidence to show that the service had been effected on the appellant. In the circumstances, the impugned order of ejectment, dated 25-11-1980 is set aside and a consequence further actions/orders taken/passed in pursuance thereof in execution application are also declared to be illegal and invalid. F. R. A. No. 99 of 1981 is accordingly allowed with costs.
3. There is also a prayer in the memo. Of appeal that the possession should be restored. In this case I have already held that no service was effected. The appellant was ejected with the help of the police and it is apparent that no prior notice had been received of the rent case or execution proceedings by the appellant. In my view, it is a fit case where an order should be passed that the possession of the premises in question be restored to the appellant. Mr. M. M. Mahmudi, learned counsel for the respondent, seeks two months' time for the respondent to vacate the premises and deliver the same to the appellant. By consent it is ordered that the vacant possession of the premises in question will be delivered to the appellant on or before 15-5-1983.
4. R & P of the rent case may be sent back to the Rent Controlle concerned for deciding the case in accordance with law. The service of the B notice of the rent case may be effected on the appellant by serving the same through Mr. Fazal Bhoy, Advocate.