NAZ SULTANA Versus HAJRA BEGUM

ORDER

1. Respondent had filed an application under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the appellant for her ejectment from the Plot House (Old No. 535‑A) and we Survey Nos. 1337 and 1338 Pir Bukhari Colony, Gulshan‑e‑Iqba1, Karac i. The, appellant did not appear before the Court and, as such, an ex par order for ejectment was passed by the learned Rent Controller on 20‑9‑ . Appellant then filed application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. read ' h section 151, C.P.C. and section 19 (2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 but the same was also dismissed by the learned Rent Controller by his under dated 10‑5‑1993. The appellant has, therefore, come before this Court ' appeal.

2. A perusal of the order of the learned Rent Controller shows that the appellant had been served in cordance with law. The notice, had been served on the appellant by the bai ff of the Court, Notice was also sent through Registered A.D. Post and s also was pasted on the outer door of the house. A publication of notice w also made in the newspaper, therefore the contention of, the learn d counsel for the appellant that the notice has not been served on h r properly and that the order has been obtained from the trial Court y the respondent by playing fraud, is not tenable. Learned counsel for he respondent has submitted that appellant has not denied in her affidit that bailiff had come to her house. He further contended that the, appellant had been served properly and that the learned Rent Controller was justified in proceeding ex parte against the appellant. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case reported as. Messrs M.S. Engineering Company v. Muhammad Mushtaq and 2 others (1992 SCMR 1294). On perusal of the case cited by the learned counsel for the respondent I find that the same is also applicable to the facts of the present case.

3. Another submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the appellant is, in fact, the owner of the premises in question. He has referred. to lease deed which has been issued in her favour . In reply learned counsel the respondent has submitted that application for ejectment was filful d on 9‑7‑1992 while the lease deed was obtained by fraudulent means y the appellant during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings which was issued to her on 23‑12‑1992. According to him the case of the res a dent is pending for regularisation before the concerned authorities. Since ere is dispute between the parties regarding the 8 ownership of the said plot/house, it is for the Civil Court to decide the title of the said premises which is the proper forum for adjudication of 8 such point.

4. For what I have said above, I am of the view that the learned Rent Controller has passed proper orders and consequently, this First Rent Appeal 4s dismissed in limine and so also the Miscellaneous Applications fixed today for hearing.

5. Today I had dismissed this apeal in limine by short order and the above are the reasons for the same.

6. H.B:T./N‑522/K Appeal dismissed.