1. ' The appellants who claim to be owners of the disputed room have, by this appeal, called in question the order passed by the Rent Controller XIV, Karachi, dated 12-3-1983 dismissing the ejectment application filed by them.
2. ' The appellants' case is that they purchased the demised premises from Zam Zam Limited by registered sale-deed executed on 28-1-1979. Subsequent to purchase of the said property notice was repeatedly issued to the respondent calling upon him to clear the rent arrears due from him.
3. According to the appellants the last notice was sent to the respondent by registered post on 31-5- 1982 which was, however, returned undelivered. Thereafter, the appellants were constrained to file ejectment application seeking ejectment of the respondent from the premises in question. As the notice could not be served on the respondent in normal course, the learned Rent Controller got the notice served on him by affixing the same at the outer door of the disputed premises and such service of notice was held good by the learned Rent Controller who proceeded ex parte of the respondent and allowed the appellants to produce their evidence. The appellants produced the affidavit of their attorney Haroon Ahmed in support of their case beside certain documents including an extract from the record-of-rights. As already stated to respondent was ex parte and, therefore, no evidence was produced from his side. Despite this, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application mainly on the ground that the appellants were notable to establish their ownership in respect of the disputed premises as they had not filed sale-deed. He further held that the photo copy of record-of-rights produced by, the appellants was not authenticated. It was also held by the learned Rent Controller that there was no mention in rent agreement about the monthly rent being Rs,90. He was also influenced by the fact that the appellants failed to serve the requisite notice on the respondent.
4. ' I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and with his assistance have also gone through the relevant documents necessary for disposal of the appeal.
5. ' As in the lower Court so in this Court respondent could not be served in ordinary course, therefore, notice was issued to him through publication. Consequently, he is ex parte and has not turned up to contest the appeal. It is stated on oath by the attorney of the appellants that the demised premises is a part of the building which has been purchased by the appellants under a registered sale-deed. The appellants have produced a photo copy of the said deed which clearly supports the assertion made by the said attorney. It appears that after the purchase of the building including the demised premises the appellants sent legal notice to the respondent but the same could not be served. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred me to one such notice which was last sent to the respondent by registered post but it was returned undelivered with endorsement that the disputed premises always remains closed and, therefore, the notice could not be served. In these circumstances, it can be safely held that eversince the disputed premises was purchased by the appellants the respondent had paid no rent to them. Consequently, the learned Rent Controller's finding that there was no mention of rate of rent in the rent agreement is of consequence. It is to be seen whether the respondent had paid or tendered or shown his readiness to pay rent at any rate to the appellants. He being ex parte, there is no such material on record. Moreover, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants the respondent was the tenant of the original landlords namely, Zam Zam Limited and, therefore, on transfer of the demised premises to the appellants he became their tenant and had to pay rent to them at the same rate at which he used to pay to the original owners. Since the respondent is un- traceable and the notice given by the appellants as well as the lower Court and so also by this Court could not be served on him he had made no response whatsoever. Accordingly the appellants' case that respondent is defaulter in payment of rent has been established and consequently, he is liable to be ejected from the disputed premises.
6. ' For the above reasons the appeal is allowed and the respondent is called upon ,to vacate the disputed premises within two months of this order. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.