1. ' The order dated 3rd April, 1986 of Vth Sr. Civil Judge & Rent Controller has been challenged in this First Rent Appeal.
2. The rent case was filed by respondent Shaffat Ali under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against appellant Mirza Ghulam Muhammad on 4-1-1986. The summons were sent but returned unserved. Substituted service was ordered and publication made in Daily Huryyat on 27-2-1986;in spite of that no one appeared. The affidavit-in-evidence was filed on behalf of respondent on 18-3-1986. The Rent Controller finally allowed the rent case and directed the appellant to hand over the vacant possession within one month.
3. ' I have heard Mr. M. Shah for the appellant and it is argued that fraud has been committed and due to illness appellant was not available at the shop. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that summons was wrongly issued on the residential address as appellant is residing in Defence Housing Society.
4. ' Mr. Abdul Naseer Khan for the respondent argued that service has been made good and finally appellant served by way of publication. He has referred to the cases reported in 1984 CLC 2632, PLD 1963 SC 533.
5. ' Final order was passed by the Rent Controller on 3-4-1986, the appeal has been filed on 14-7-1986.
6. The plea of the appellant is that he came to know about the rent case when he was dispossessed.
7. The appellant could not be served in the ordinary course. The Respondent was very vigilant and he has given two addresses one of shop being the disputed premises and other residential place. On both the addresses appellant was not served as according to Mr. Shah the shop was closed and finally notice was affixed on the outer door of his residence. There is publication in Huryyat newspaper, in spite of that appellant did not appear, even during the execution proceeding. I am of the view that all efforts have been made to serve the appellant. The Rent Controller has rightly considered the affidavit-in-evidence of the respondent and passed eviction order A in favour of the respondent. I do not find anything from the record that any fraud has been committed. Both the counsel has informed that possession has already been taken over by the respondent by way of execution proceedings. The order of the Rent Controller calls for no interference. The appeal is dismissed.