1. ' This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is filed against ex parte judgment dated 29-3-1987 passed in Rent Case No,517/87. The above rent case was instituted by the respondents against the appellant on grounds of default in payment of rent, subletting, making illegal additions and alterations in the shops and nuisance.
2. ' It appears that the notice of the rent application could not be served on the appellant in the ordinary course and accordingly substituted service of notice was ordered in the case. The notice of the application appeared in the daily urdu `Hurriyat' but the copy of the notice sent through registered post A/D was returend undelivered. On 20th Jan. 1987 when the case was fixed before the Rent Controller to determine whether the notice. Issued to appellant in the case is served or not the Controller held the service as good and ordered ex parte proceedings against the appellant.
3. The case was accordingly posted for ex parte proof on 29-1-1987. On 21-1-1987 the appellant submitted an application for recalling the order for ex parte proceedings against him and prayed that he may be allowed to participate in the proceedings by filing written statement. The advocate for the respondents made a written endorsement on the above application filed by the appellant to the effect that he had no objection to the grant of application. In spite of that, the Rent Controller rejected the application on 4-2-1987 and, thereafter, proceeded with the case ex parte and granted the application on 29-3-1987. The appellant has challenged the above ex parte eviction order.
4. ' I have heard Mr.Izhar Haider Rizvi, the learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent and his counsel remained absent in spite of repeated calls. From perusal of R & P of rent case it appears that notice of proceedings issued through bailiff for appearance of appellant in Court on 20-1-1987 was pasted on 18-1-1987 on the outer door of the shop. Similarly, the notice of the case published in urdu daily "Herriyat" was published on 9-1-1987, directing the appellant to appear in Court on 20-1- 1987. Section 19 of the Ordinance which governs the procedure of the eviction case before the Rent Controller reads as under:-- "19. Procedure. (i) Where an application other than the application under section 14 has been made to the Controller under this Ordinance, he shall, unless the application is summarily dismissed by him for reasons to be recorded, issue a notice to the respondent to file written reply, if any, within such period not exceeding fifteen days of the receipt of the notice.
(2) Where on the day fixed in the notice for the respondent to file written reply, it is found that the notice has been served but the respondent has failed to file his reply without any reasonable excuse, the Controller may, proceed to make an ex parte order and after such order has been made the Controller shall have no power to rescind such order.
(3) Where the respondent has filed the written reply, the Controller shall proceed to receive evidence first of the applicant and his witnesses and then of the respondent and his witnesses.
(4) A party to a case under this Ordinance shall prove the evidence of his witness by producing the affidavit of such witness a copy of which shall simultaneously be supplied to the other party and such other party shall have the right to cross-examine the witness on such affidavit and if the witness has been cross-examined the party producing the witness may reexamine him.
(5) The Controller shall, instead of formally framing issues arising between the parties, state them briefly in the judgment and shall record findings on each such issue separately."
5. ' From a bare reading of the above provision it will appear that the notice of the rent case which may be issued by the Rent Controller to a tenant under subsection (1) of section 19 ibid, must specify the time within which the reply to the application is to be filed by the tenant. Such time, however, should not exceed 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. From the copies of the notices issued to appellant for appearance before the Controller on 20-1-1987 in the case through bailiff as well as through publication in the press, it is quite clear that no time for filing the reply by the appellant was fixed and as such, the appellant could file the reply to the application within 15 days of the service of such notice. The notice issued through bailiff was pasted on 18-1-1987 and as such within 15 days of such pasting the appellant could file his written statement in the case.
6. Similarly the notice in daily "Hurryat" was published on 9-1-1987 and, therefore, the appellant could file his reply within 15 days of such publication. Therefore, from whatever angle the case is looked, there was no justification for passing of the ex parte order on 20-1-1987 as the time allowed under the law to the appellant for filing of reply to the application had not expired. It is really surprising that in spite of appearance of the appellant before the Controller within the time allowed by law to file written statement and in spite of no objection recorded by the learned counsel for the respondents on the application of appellant for recalling the ex parte order Rent Controller unnecessarily delayed the proceedings and ejected the application of appellant on 4-9-1987 and thereafter recorded ex parte evidence in the case and passed ex parte decree on 29-3-1987. The procedure adopted by the the Rent Controller, was totally opposed to law and principles of natural justice. I accordingly allow this Appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and remand the case back to the Rent Controller for disposal according to law. The appellant will be allowed 14 days time to file written statement from the date of his appearance before the Rent Controller. There will be no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.