' Appellant in this case is tenant of the respondent in respect of premises office bearing No,1 on Plot No,MR-1-146, Hamid Market, Marriott Road, Karachi. The respondent filed Rent Case No,1391 of 1995, before IV Rent Controller, Karachi South, for eviction of the appellant from the said premises on the ground of default in payment of rent since January, 1995.
2. Notices were issued by the Rent Controller to the appellant/opponent from time to time, but they could not be served. On an application of the respondent/applicant, therefore, the learned Rent Controller ordered publication of notice in daily "Nawa-i-Waqt', and the notice was published in the said newspaper on 6-1-1998. Despite this notice, the appellant/opponent did not appear before the Rent Controller to contest the case, and the learned Rent Controller allowed the application by his order, dated 16-3-1998, on the basis of ex parte evidence of the landlady/respondent. This order of the Rent Controller has been called in question by way of the present appeal.
3. Mr. Liaqat Merchant, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the reports of the bailiff on notices were not correct and he did not go to the correct address for service of notice. His argument is that since the service through bailiff was not good, the publication of notice in newspaper is of no consequence. This is something difficult to accept because notices are published in newspapers only, when they are not served in ordinary manner through bailiff. Since service could not be made through bailiff, the notice was ordered to be published in the newspaper, which has a wide circulation. There appears no justification, whatsoever, to ignore or discard this mode of service of notice.
4. The appellant/opponent did not appear before the Rent Controller, despite publication of notice in newspaper for the purpose, to dispute the evidence of the applicant/respondent about default in payment of rend and, therefore, the applicant's version was rightly accepted by the Rent Controller.
5. Mr. Merchant urged that the appellant had not committed default because a deposit of Rs, 50,000 was already with the landlady. It is, however, admitted, in the memo. Of appeal, that rent from January, 1995 onward has not been paid, for which the appellant stated that she is ready to deposit this rent. Such pleas could have been raised before the Rent Controller, but the appellant chose to ignore that stage.
6. Mr. Merchant has cited the cases of Mst. Mariam Bai Adam Ali v. Mst. Salma Khatoon (1982 CLC 1314) and Secretary, Education, Punjab and others v. Rent Controller and others (1981 CLC 1369) but they are of no help to his case for their distinguishable facts.
7. If service of a notice through publication in a widely circulated newspaper is allowed to be ignored, there would be left no effective mode of service upon the parties interested to avoid such notice. In the present case, the appellant was adequately served with notice through publication and the learned Rent Controller was justified in proceedings with the matter ex parte.
8. There is no valid reason to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed accordingly, however, with no orders as to costs. Listed application also stands disposed of.