1995 PLD 242 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

PAUL NEWMAN VS ASMA KHAN Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--19 , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 Ss. 15 & 19---Ex Parte order--- Personal bona fide need of landlord-- Tenant was served through process-server of Court, but service could not be effected on various, dates--- Notices were sent by registered post, but neither A.D. receipts nor envelope covering notices were returned to the Court---Rent Controller directed service of notice by way of pasting on outer door of premises in presence of two witnesses but again process-server reported that tenant was not available at his residence and according to directions of Rent Controller, notice was again affixed on outer door of premises of- tenant in presence of two witnesses---Rent Controller being fully satisfied with mode of service, found service of notice good against tenant and on adjourned date of hearing when tenant again did not turn up, Rent Controller decided to proceed ex parte and on basis of affidavit-in-evidence filed by landlord, accepted ejectment petition of landlord--- Tenant, in circumstances, could not be allowed to say that he had no notice of eviction proceedings as no legal defect and infirmity existed in matter of service by affixation against tenant on part of Rent Controller since Rent Controller was not bound by intricacies and technicalities of Code of Civil Procedure--- Presumption was that notice was served on tenant by virtue of Art.129, Cl.(e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat,1984 as well as S.27 of General Clauses Act-%-Service of any document by post would be deemed to have been effected at the time when letter would be delivered in ordinary course of post, unless it was proved to be contrary ---Party was required to be vigilant and diligent in prosecution of his remedy under all circumstances and in case a party had chosen to remain away from Court proceedings and to take advantage of his own negligence and indifference towards Court, law would not come to his rescue---Ex parte ejectment order was rightly passed against tenant, in circumstances.