' Muhammad Mushtaq respondent applied to the Rent Controller for the ejectment of Muhammad Ikram appellant from a portion of the property bearing No, SE-38-R-37, Circular Road, Lahore, in possession of the latter. The appellant was proceeded against ex parte and the learned Rent Controller, after recording the statement of the respondent passed an order of ejectment. The first appeal preferred by the appellant against the said order failed. Hence this second appeal.
2. The record indicates that in the beginning of the proceedings in the Rent Controller's Court the appellant was found to have been served personally. However. Not satisfied with that service, the learned Rent Controller not only tried to notify the appellant telegraphically but also directed substituted service. It was after taking these precautionary measures that the ex parte evidence was recorded and ejectment directed. But it is to be noted that the purported signature of the appellant appearing on the back of the process is so different from his admitted signature that it is difficult to hold that the appellant had been served personally. The learned Rent Controller, therefore, acted very wisely in refusing to rely upon that service.
' However, while deciding to proceed against the appellant ex parte after the issuance of telegram and receipt of the report of substituted service he failed to notice that the address of the appellant given by the respondent in the petition was incomplete. Neither the house number was mentioned nor the name of the road or street. The appellant was shown only as a resident of "outside Delhi Gate", Lahore. No satisfactory service can be effected o such an address much less posting of a summons or a notice on the door of the addressee.
3. In my opinion, therefore, the report of substituted service was no more reliable in this case than that of the personal service. I am accordingly satisfied that the appellant was wrongly proceeded against ex parte and the learned Appellate authority also erred in holding that the service was in order. In view of the incomplete address, no presumption could be raised in favour of the telegraphic communication either.
4. Secondly, the averment in the petition was that respondent was the landlord and the appellant was the tenant. But when the respondent was examined by the Rent Controller ex parte he did not utter a single word with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the appellant. He only mentioned a will executed by his mother transferring title in the premises in question to him on the basis of which the learned Rent Controller in his judgment observed that the petitioner had "some connection which the said premises". It was on such evidence and such observation that the impugned order of ejectment was passed. It ought to be borne in mind that the question of the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is one which has a direct bearing on the question of the Rent Controller's jurisdiction. Therefore, even in ex parte proceedings, it is the duty of the Rent Controller to direct the petitioner, who claims to be the landlord. To bring on record all such evidence as can establish tenancy and thus satisfy the Court that it has jurisdiction. It would be different with a civil Court which is a Court of general jurisdiction.
In my opinion, the statement of the respondent recorded by `the learned Controller hopelessly failed even to indicate the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the appellant. Nor was the photostat copy of the will Exh. A. I sufficient to prove any connection between the respondent and the property as it did not show that the executant had authenticated it. It may further be noted here that the original will does not appear to have been produced before the Rent Controller.
5. In short, for the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority are not maintainable in law.
6. I, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the said orders and remand the case back to the Rent Controller concerned to try the respondent's petition afresh. The parties shall appear before the Rent Controller on 15-3-1977.