1. ' This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance of 1979, is filed by tenant/appellant challenging the order of Rent Controller, dated 26-7-1984, refusing to set aside the ex parte order, dated 30-4-1983, by which the ejectment application of the respondent was granted by the Rent Controller on the ground of personal requirement.
2. ' The ex parte judgment was passed in the case after affecting substituted service on the appellant.
3. The substituted service was ordered by the Rent Controller on 17-3-1983. By that order the notice of the ejectment application was directed to be served on the appellant by registered post A.D. By publication in a newspaper and by pasting a copy of the notice on the outer door of the premises occupied by the appellant as well as on Court notice board. Prior to the granting of application of respondent for substituted service notices were issued in the ordinary course for service on the appellant for 4-8-1982, 29-8-1982, 6-10-1982 and 8-11-1982 but on all these dates the notices were returned unserved with the endorsement of bailiff that the premises is lying closed and there was no person to accept the service o' notices. Pursuant to the order of Controller, dated 17-3-1983 granting application for substituted service, a notice was published in the case in newspaper "Daily Leader" dated, 28th March, 1983. The notice sent by registered post A.D. To appellant was returned by the postal authority with following endorsement.
4. ' The notice issued in the ordinary course through bailiff was returned duly served with the endorsement that copy of the sum have been pasted on the outer door of the premises occupied by the appellant and a copy of notice was also pasted on the Court notice board. In his report affixing the copy of notice on-the outer door of premises the bailiff has given detailed description' of the shop of the opponent including the colour of the outer door of the premises and description of an adjacent shop. The bailiff while affixing copy of notice on the door of premises also obtained signatures of two witnesses of the locality. On the above material the Rent Controller held the service of notice on appellant as good and consequently passed the order for ejectment on the basis of ex parte proof submitted by the respondent. The application for setting aside ex parte order was made on 28-8-1983. This application was supported by the affidavit of one Mahmood Shah who alleged that he was managing affairs of appellant as his manager for the last 20 years.
5. In the counter-affidavit to the above application the respondent specifically pleaded that the appellant had failed to disclose the date on which he came to know of the ex parte order or the source through whom he became aware of the ex parte order. In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the appellant these details were not furnished. The Rent Controller declined to set aside the ex parte order taking into consideration the fact that the appellant himself did not appear in the case but was represented through another person who described himself attorney on the basis of a power of attorney which did not contain full particulars of executant and the witnesses who had signed the same. He also reached the conclusion that the service was duly effected.
6. ' Mr. Ibrahim Lakhani, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that while declining to set aside the ex parte order, learned Rent Controller did not examine the bailiff in the Court which was necessary in order to rebut the allegation of appellant made in his application for setting aside the ex parte order. Learned counsel also contended that there was no justification for ordering substituted service in the case as the appellant had appeared in the earlier case through his attorney Mahmood Shah instituted by the respondent. I have already referred to the circumstances under which substituted service was ordered in the case and the mode in which the substituted service was affected on the appellant. There neither appears to be irregularity in the order granting substituted service, nor in the manner substituted service was affected. Substituted service in a case on a party is a affective as personal service and, therefore, if the appellant challenge the substituted service on him, it was for him to have established those circumstances which would render the substituted service as I effective. The appellant failed to bring any thing on record whit could invalidate the substituted service. There being nothing irregular in the service of notice on the appellant by substituted means the Rent Idler rightly refused to set aside the ex parte order.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention that the service of notice by substituted means was not proper cited the case of Mashlakhuddin v. Syed Ali Haider 1982 SCMR 570, Muhammad Mushtaq v. Muhammad Ahsanul Khairi 19'84 CLC 2684 and Mst. Hoor Bai v. Waris Masood 1984 CLC 3030. None of these cases are of any assistance to the appellant in the circumstances of the present case. There is no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed but the appellant is allowed 4 months time to vacate the premises. There will be no order as to costs.