' SALEEM AKHTAR, J---The respondent filed ejectment application against the petitioner and another person Naushad Gul for ejectment from shop bearing No, 10-SR-9/104, Sarai Quarters, Outram Road, Karachi, Pakistan Chowk, Karachi under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on grounds of default in payment of rent and subletting of the premises to respondent No,2. The learned Controller issued notice to the respondents for appearance which was served on respondent No,2 on 18-8-1991. According to the Bailiff's report respondent No,2 received the notice for himself and also on behalf of respondent No,1 The endorsement made by respondent No,2 does not show that he had received on behalf of respondent No,1 as well. Be that as it may on 2-9-1991 the learned Controller held the service good on both the respondents and adjourned the case for filing written statement on 14-9-1991. It may be pointed out that the photo copy of the notice at page 41 of the paper book mentions the date of hearing as 2-8-1991. However, this aspect has not been noticed by any one during the proceedings. On 14-4-1991 the respondents did not appear and the learned Controller adjourned the case to 19-9-1991 for filing written statement. On that date no one appeared on behalf of the respondents nor filed the written statement. Advocate for the petitioner was present and the case was adjourned to 28-9-1991 "for want of ex parte proof". The Advocate for the petitioner filed affidavit in ex parte proof on 28-9-1991 and the case was put off to 9-10-1991 for ex pane orders. The final ex parte order of ejectment was passed on that date in the follow manner:-- "The opponent No,2 received the process but he remained absent, the suit proceeded ex parte against the opponent on 19-9-1991 the plaintiff has filed affidavit in ex parte proof evidence there is nothing in rebuttal of plaintiff claim from the other side. I therefore allow the rent application and direct the opponent to vacate the premises within 30 days from this date and hand over the possession of the premises to the applicant."
' The respondents filed first rent appeal which was dismissed in limine by the impugned order dated 4-10-1992.
2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Controller did not pass any order of ejectment against the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner was aware of the order from the very beginning and at this stage to allege that no ejectment order was passed is completely incorrect. A perusal of the order passed by the Controller lends support to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In these circumstances, we grant leave to consider the question whether any order of ejectment was praised by the learned Controller against the petitioner. It may also be considered whether on the basis of service of notice which required the petitioner to appear on 2-8-1991 instead of 2-9-1991 which fact should be ascertained from the original record. Ejectment order could be passed against him.