MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ Versus ZAHEER AHMAD

1. The respondent filed an application against the appellant in respect of the premises in dispute for his eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent, for his personal use and occupation and that the appellant has carried out some additions and alterations and has impaired value and utility of the building. The appellant was declared ex parte. An ex parte order was passed against him. The appellant moved an application for setting aside the ex pa rte order, which was dismissed by the Rent Controller, hence the present appeal. Repeated notices were issued for service as is evident from the order dated 15‑9‑1981 but he could not be served. An application for substituted service was also moved and the publication was made. A registered letter was sent to the appellant but the appellant refused to take the letter, therefore, the Court held the service good.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant had not received any‑ notice and, therefore, ex parte order is illegal. He has, however, admitted that the address given in the notices is proper. He has also admitted that the address given on the registered letter is also proper. Therefore, in the ordinary course it is presumed that the notices have been served upon the appellant. He has refused to receive the letter sent to him under registered cover. Apart from it, the appellant moved an application in the Court of Controller wherein he has said that the appellant had gone out of the country and he was no more tenant of the applicant/ respondent and the applicant with a mala fide intention had filed the present application in order to defeat civil suit for declaration and injunction which the appellant's mother had filed against the respondent. The respondent /applicant has not disclosed this fact in his application. The application was moved by Mst. Zohra, the mother of the appellant, as intervenor wherein she has stated that the premises in dispute was purchased by her and is under her occupation and a civil suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction is pending. The stay was granted by the civil Court in favour of Mst. Zohra. In view of the fact that the service has bee held good by the learned Controller on the material available before him, the appeal does not merit consideration. In addition, appellant himself admitted that he is no more the tenant as he had left the country and residing outside.

3. In these circumstances the appeal has no force, the same stand dismissed with no order as to costs.

4. H.B.T. Appeal dismissed