BILQUIS REHMAN Versus ANJUM HAMEED

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. -- This appeal is directed against judgment, dated 24-3-1987 of the Sind High Court; whereby the respondent-tenants' Rent Appeal against ex parte order of eviction, was set aside and the case was remanded to the learned Rent Controller for decision on merits.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. Despite some effort, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to convince us that there was service of the respondent side for the proceedings before the Rent Controller. The ex parte order, therefore, was liable to be set aside and the High Court judgment on this question is unexceptionable.

3. However, we have noticed that the proceedings in this case being under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (No. XVII) of 1979 for the benefit of a widow, the spirit of the relevant provisions demanded that they should be concluded without lengthy procedures, on summary hearing without avoidable delay. The learned Rent Controller had, also in the order impugned before the High Court, dealt with the merits of the case on the basis of the pleas then raised by the respondents before him. One of them, namely, that one and not the other respondent herein was the tenant, has already been properly dealt with in the High Court judgment by the direction that the other can also be impleaded.

4. There was not much of defence by the respondents before the learned Controller in so far as the liability to be evicted summarily under section 14 is concerned. Learned Rent Controller, therefore, relying on a Sind High Court case: Bashiruddin Qureshi v. Major (Rtd.) Aminullah Khawaja decided on 5-8-1984 (1985 C L C 316) stated to be affirmed by the Supreme Court in Civil Petition No. 461-K of 1984 decided on 1-11-1984) after having examined the pleas then raised from the respondent side, when dealing with application for setting aside ex parte order, also decided the case on merits. We thought this to be a salutary approach to proceedings under section 14 and invited the learned counsel to argue on merits. He came out with the plea that in the High Court a specific plea of fresh agreement of tenancy was also raised. That being so, it became necessary to see whether in this case also the same procedure should not be followed which was adopted by the Sind High Court in the cited case.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents failed to contest this position except that the Controller could also do the same.

6. We, however, approve the procedure adopted by the Sind High Court in the case of Bashiruddin Qureshi already noticed.

7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The case is remanded to the High Court for decision on merits in accordance with law and the foregoing observations, if possible within six months.

8. The appellant has already obtained possession of the property in dispute. She shall remain in possession thereof for the time being. However, this aspect of the matter shall henceforth will also remain within the control of the High Court.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. M.B.A./B-19/K Appeal allowed.