1. ' This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed by the appellant against the ex parte order of eviction dated 25-7-1983 and the subsequent order dated 24-3-1984, by which his application for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed. The application was filed by the appellant on the ground of default and personal requirement. The R & P of the case shows that the notice dated 7th March, 1983 which was issued for 5th April, 1983 was allegedly served on the appellant on 17-3-1983. This service was effected by the bailiff on the pointation of the son of the respondent and the bailiff has stated in his report that he did not know the appellant personally. However, the Rent Controller did not hold the service of the notice effected on the appellant on 7-3-1983 as good and directed fresh notice of the application for 4-5-1983. The notice issued for 4-5-1983 was allegedly served on the appellant on 23-4-1983. However, on the date of hearing the appellant did not appear and therefore the Rent Controller adjourned the case to 5-5- 1983 for examination of the bailiff. The statement of bailiff was recorded by the Court on 5-5-1983 and he stated before the Court that" the opponent was present in his shop. I asked his name, he told that his name is Dr. Suleman. I gave him copy of the notice and obtained his signature on the notice marked as 'A'." On the basis of this statement of the bailiff the Rent Controller held the service good and proceeded with the case ex parte and granted the application. Thereafter when the execution proceedings started the appellant filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte order against him and alleged that he was not served with the notice in the rent case. The Rent Controller dismissed the application for setting aside the ex parte order on the sole ground that the appellant failed to prefer any appeal against ex parte order passed by his predecessor on 25-7-1983. However, he did not advert to the contention of the appellant that he was not at all served with notice of the rent case. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the R&P I find that on the notice which was issued by the Rent Controller for appearance of the appellant in Court on 4-5-1983, the bailiff reported that he had given the notice personally to appellant. He did not state in his report that he knew the appellant personally or that the appellant was identified to him by any person. In his statement before the Rent Controller the bailiff stated that when he had gone to serve the notice, he enquired from the person present who disclosed his name as Dr. Suleman and therefore he gave him the notice and obtained his signature on the office copy of notice. The notice issued to the appellant for 4-5-1983 is purported to have been signed by one Suleman but there is clear over writing on the signatures and on comparison with the admitted signature of appellant it is difficult to hold that the signature on the notice is that of appellant. Apart from in view of the inconsistency in the evidence of bailiff before the Court and his report on the notice I am not prepared to hold the service as good. As the appellant was not properly served, the appeal is held to be within time. I accordingly accept this appeal, set aside the ex parte order of ejectment passed against the appellant but in view of the fact that the case was instituted in 1983 and the appellant alleges that he was not served with the notice of rent case. I fix 9th February, 1985, as the date on which parties will appear before the Rent Controller and on that date the appellant will submit his written statement also. Thereafter the Rent Controller will take further proceedings and will make every effort to dispose of this application as expeditious as possible in accordance with law. There will, however, be no order as to costs. The appeal is allowed.