1. ' This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is directed against an order dated 26-5-1980 passed by the learned IInd Controller, in Rent Case No, 4176/77, whereby he declined to consider an application for setting aside ex parte order on the ground that he was not competent to do so "in view of section 19 (2) of S. R. P. O., 1979". The impugned order was passed in the following circumstances :- ' The Rent Case No, 4176/77 was filed on 29-11-1977. It was an application under section 12 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Notice was issued to the other side. It was reported by the process server that the opponent in the proceedings, who is the appellant herein, had refused to accept the notice. The learned Controller, therefore, passed ex parte order on 1-3-1978. The appellant filed an application, on 17-5-1978, for setting aside the ex parte order. The learned Controller rejected the application by the impugned order dated 26-5-1980.
2. ' The learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the application could not be rejected summarily on the ground that the Controller did not have jurisdiction to entertain it in view of the provisions of subsection (2) (misquoted by the learned Rent Controller as sub-rule (4) of section 19 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979), but the Controller should have considered whether the notice of the main application was actually served on the opponent/landlord and he had failed to file written statement without sufficient cause. He has placed reliance on cases Mashlakuddin v. Syed Ali Hyder (1) and Syed Ahmad Ali v.
3. Muhammad Yaqoob (2) which supports his contention. The learned Advocate for the respondent does not dispute, the legal position expounded in the cases mentioned above. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Controller for examining the question-whether the notice
(1) 1982 SCM R 570 (2) 1983 CLC 1135 of the main application had been duly served on the opponent/landlord and he had failed to file written statement without sufficient cause and pa appropriate order on the application for setting aside the ex parte order.