1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The dispute between the parties in respect of property No. C/95, Khata Bulaqi Shah, Gumti Bazar Lahore. This was an evacuee property which was transferred to the respondent on the 24th February 1960. The respondent who is alleged to have given a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the appellant has failed and neglected to pay the rent. The Rent Controller framed two preliminary issues namely :-
(i) whether the respondent has served a valid notice upon the appellant as required under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and
(ii) whether P. T. O. Dated the 24th February 1960, has ceased to be operative. If so, from which date and with what effect from these proceedings.
2. By consent of the parties, the petition is treated as an appeal. The record of the lower Courts has been summoned and has been perused.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are' satisfied that in the present case, the appellant has rebutted the presumption by appearing in Court and by denying the service of the notice. In these circumstances, the trial Court should have got the signature of the appellant compared with the signature on the admitted documents. It should have further given an opportunity to the respondent to produce the postman to prove that the notice and the acknowledgement due was offered to the appellant for service and that she signed it. In view of this, the learned trial Court has failed to approach the matter in accordance with law and has fallen into an error. We would, therefore, set aside the order of the learned trial Court dated the 13th September 1968 and remand the case back to him for decision of the case in the light of the above observation.