1999 PLP 3080 (MLD)

Ch. Abdul Razzaq Kamboh for Respondents Date of hearing: 6th March, 1998. The petitioner in this Constitutional petition, has challenged order of ejectment, dated 17-7-1997, passed by learned Rent Controller, as affirmed in appeal, on 21-1-1998 by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.

2. The only point, raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, is, that he has not been allowed sufficient opportunity of defending the ejectment petition and the defence was closed in haste.

3. The submission made is not well-founded. The ejectment petition was filed against Mian Sajid Ali sole proprietor of M/s Saji Enterprises, petitioner herein. The sole proprietorship was not a party in the ejectment proceedings, as such and instead the petition was filed against Sajid Ali Shah in his individual capacity. On the last date of hearing, it was directed, that Sajid Ali Shah tenant in the premises shall appear in person in the Court. He is present today. On being asked, he admitted, that the property was rented out in his favour and that he is a tenant therein though he disputes the rate of rent. On being asked, as to whether he had any proof of payment of rent for the disputed period, he categorically admitted, that he did not have any receipt for the payment of the rent for the period in issue. He, however, claims to be in possession of certain bank challans, which pertain to the period from January 1998. He did not deny, that he sent the rent through money-order in his personal name. In this view of the matter, there does not appear to be any dispute about the fact, that Sajid Ali himself was tenant in the property, but with a view to create misleading situation, he, with mala fide intent, filed this petition, in the name of Sajid Enterprises, which as such was not a part to the proceedings.

4. The learned Rent Controller gave 12 adjournments for filing of written statement. For this purpose, 6-11-1996, 21-11-1996, 7-12-1996, 14-12-1996, 6-2-1997, 21-5-1997, 29-5-1997, 5-6-1997 and 12-6-1997 were fixed. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not deny, that these dates were fixed but he tried to argue, that the petitioner innocently did not know the purpose and object for which the dates were given and, therefore, no written statement could be filed. The explanation given is, without substance and cannot be accepted. Being a parry to the proceedings, Sajid Ali, was fully conscious of the every date given by the Court for written statement and having been represented by the counsel he should be conscious of the consequences of non-filing of the reply. The case was unnecessarily delayed from 1993 till 1997, and ultimately the defence of the tenant was closed and after recording evidence of respondent No. 2, an order of ejectment was passed, on 17-7-1997. This being so, no exception can be taken from the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, as sufficient opportunities were allowed.

5. As to the merits of the case, the evidence of respondent No. 1, proved, that the tenant had admitted payment of rent. As noted supra, the tenancy between Sajid Ali tenant and Respondent No. 1 was not denied. The petitioner did not produce any defence nor even could show any receipts for the payment of disputed rent, even in the course of hearing of this petition. The learned Rent Controller, therefore, rightly directed eviction of the petitioner.

6. For the reasons above, there in no merit in this writ petition, which accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./S-338/L. Petition dismissed.