1. ' In this matter the respondent was served by publication in daily `Mashriq' Karachi in the issue of 17-5-1990 but he did not put in appearance. The notice of intimation of today's date was issued to the respondent for service through his attorney, Inamullah. The attorney refused to receive the notice stating that he had no concern with the matter. The notice was sent at the address given in the power of attorney which was filed on behalf of the respondent in the trial Court.
2. ' Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh pointed out that even in the trial Court the respondent could be served only through publication. The present appeal pertains to the case under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. I, therefore, proceed with the case in absence of respondent as he has deliberately avoided to appear in the Court.
3. ' After passing of this order I started hearing of the appeal and after about 7 minutes one gentleman Khalid Mahmood appeared in the Court with a typed application requesting for adjournment of the case on the ground that the attorney of the respondent had gone to Sialkot for his personal work. In the said application the said Khalid Mahmood has described himself as brother of Anamullah which fact is confirmed by his National Identity Card and Driving license.
4. ' Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh has opposed the adjournment application on the ground that it has been filed by an unauthorised person and he further states :hat the rent case under section 14 was filed in the year 1986 and proceedings have been protracted and delayed by the respondent by employing all devices available to him. Appellant had filed the application on the ground that he had obtained the age of 60 years. He therefore, requests that the matter may be heard today.
5. I have formed the opinion that the respondent has protracted the matter successfully for a sufficiently long time and today adjournment application has been filed by the unauthorised person. The bailiff had gone to deliver the notice en 2-2-1990 when the attorney was present on the shop and refused to receive the notice and today in the application it has been disclosed that he has gone to Sialkot and for that reason the case be adjourned. The adjournment application is dismissed accordingly.
6. ' Appellant filed rent case under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the respondent on the ground that he had attained the age of 60 years and required the shop for his personal use to run the busines's of bags, trunks and suit-cases. Notice dated 10-11-1985 under section 14 was served on the respondent at the address of the shop in respect whereof the rent case has been filed but the respondent failed to deliver the possession on expiry of the period of two months. The notice was also served telegraphically. The respondent filed written statement in which he denied the averments made in the application. He further stated that the age of the appellant has been incorrectly mentioned in the Matriculation Certificate. He denied the receipt of the notice. It was also alleged by the respondent that the appellant wanted to dispose of the property and had negotiated for its sale for consideration of Rs,1,50,000 and the bargain Was struck down for Rs,2,00,000 but sale could not be finalized. The respondent contested the case through his attorney Inamullah Shaikh s/o Shaikh Mohammad Ashraf.
7. ' The Rent Controller dismissed the application on the basis of his finding that the notice under section 14 was not served on the respondent. For the above order he relied on the case of Hassan Asghar Rizvi PLD 1989 SC 1.
8. ' I have heard Mr.Abdul Sattar Shaikh in support of the appeal.
9. ' The applicant alongwith his affidavit in evidence had filed copies of notice under section 14 of the Ordinance and telegram sent by him on 10-11-1985 requiring the respondent in terms of section 14 of the Ordinance to hand over the possession to him on expiry of two months of receipt of the notice as he required the shop for his personal use. The notice and telegram were sent at the address of the shop in dispute. He produced the postal acknowledgment receipt which shows that the notice was delivered to one Naveed. The appellant also got confirmation from the postmaster with regard to the delivery of the notice which was affirmed by the postmaster by his letter dated 21-1-1986. The appellant also examine Muhammad Asghar Rajput the postman of the beat who deposed that he has received a registry for Shaikh Mohammad Rafiq for service on the address on Diamond Footwear Shoes, Shop No,616/B-10 and he delivered the said registered cover at the address which was received by one Naveed. He proved the postal receipts and the acknowledgment/due receipt. He also proved the signature of Naveed on the latter document. He also brought the service record of the registered letter which he produced as Exh.57 on which signature o Naveed was obtained in acknowledgment of receipt of the aforesaid notice on 14-11- 1985. The appellant also examined Haji Abdul Shakoor who runs the business in the shop adjoining the disputed shop. He deposed that the knee Naveed Ashraf Shaikh who sits and works in the shop in dispute on behalf of the respondent. He further deposed that Naveed had informed him that he has received the notice on behalf of Shaikh Mohammad Rafiq from the appellant for vacating the shop. The respondent's attorney Inamullah filed affidavit in evidence wherein he deposed that no notice was received by the respondent. He also state that the appellant had not given notice as contemplated under section 14 of the Ordinance. He also repeated the averments made in the written statement. The respondent filed affidavit of Naveed s/o Mohammad Ashraf who deposed that h never signed any receipt or acknowledgment on behalf of Shaikh Mohamma Rafiq and specifically denied the receipt of notice in question.
10. ' Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh has urged that the notice was sent by the appellant at the correct address of the respondent and the said notice having been delivered at the correctly described address, would be treated as having been served on the respondent. On the said proposition he has relied on the cases lmran Ansari v. Muhammad Arfatullah Alvi PLD 1988 Kar. 619 and Rashi Ahmed v. The Friends Match Works PLD 1989 SC 503.
11. ' The notice was sent to the respondent telegraphically as well as b registered A.D. It is not the case of the respondent that the notice was not sent the correct and proper address. I have seen the notice and find that the address has been described correctly and in all possible details. The acknowledgme receipt and the record of the postal authorities show that it was delivered to on Naveed and his signature was obtained thereon. The respondent examined the said Naveed to disprove that he had received the notice on behalf of the respondent. I have compared the signature of Naveed on the affidavit with that his obtained by the postal authorities on postal acknowledgment due and Ex.5 and find that the said signatures are of the same person who has signed the affidavit. The postman of the beat has affirmed receipt of notice by the said Naveed on behalf of the respondent. In view of the above evidence on the record there was no justification for the Rent Controller to hold that the notice undo section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance was not served on the respondent. Once the notice has been dispatched by registered post at correct and proper address and delivered at such address, is to be deemed to have been received by the addressee, irrespective of the fact that it is not personally received by the addressee or is received by some other person on his behalf. Burden lies on the addressee to prove under such circumstances that notice was not received by him. The respondent has failed to discharge such burden. The said principle has been laid down in Rashid Ahmed's case on the principle embodied in section 26 of the General Clauses Act. In Imran Ansari's case the notice delivered to the wife of the tenant was held to have been served on the tenant. Mere denial of receipt of notice by the respondent and of signature by his witness Naveed is of no avail to him. Moreso when the signatures on the postal documents have been found on comparison under Article 84 of Qanun-e- Shahadat, 1984 to be of the said witness. The case of Fatima v. Abdul Razzak reported in 1988 SCMR 1449 may be referred to in this regard.
12. Section 14 of the Ordinance provides expeditious summary remedy to the specified categories of landlords and the very object of the said provision will be frustrated if technicalities of law are allowed to be enforced. It was for such reason that in the case of Wali Muhammad v. Hameeda PLD 1981 Kar. 794 it was laid down that spirit of the said law is to provide to tenant two months' time before filing ejectment application. Similar view was expressed in lmran Ansari's case (ibid). Relying on a Full Bench decision in the case of Basharatullah v. Mirza Muhammad Hassan PLD 1986 Kar.
13. 309 it was observed in the above case that the provisions of section 14 pertaining to service of notice are directory in nature and not mandatory and therefore even if any defect is alleged in the service of notice it is cured because even if it was not served directly on the tenant no prejudice was caused as subsequently tenant gained knowledge and participated in the proceedings before the Court.
14. ' The learned Rent Controller has relied on the case of Hassan Asghar Rizvi v. Mohammad Aziz PLD 1989 SC 1 for holding that the notice was not properly served. The said authority has nothing to do with the said proposition. In the said case the Supreme Court had declared the notice under section 14 invalid, inasmuch as it was given more than six months before the date on which the landlord was due to retire from the service.
15. The only other objection taken by the respondent was with regard to the age of the appellant by stating that the appellant had attained the age of 60 years quite a time before the filing of the rent case. Such fact alone would not disentitle the appellant from seeking remedy under section 14 of the Ordinance, in view of the law laid down in PLD 1989 SC 356 (Hafiz Abdul Malik v. Muhammad Ilyas). I, therefore, reverse the impugned order dated 27-8-1989 and order eviction of the respondent from the shop in question.