1980 PLP 36 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.‑The respondent brought an application for the ejectment of the present petitioner from the two flats in question situated in P. E. C. H. S., Karachi before the Rent Controller Karachi. In the course of the proceedings on the 12th of May 1976, neither the petitioner nor her learned counsel appeared at the hearing fixed for the settlement of rent account under section ' 13(6) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance and consequently the proceedings were taken. ex parte against her. Eventually on the 31st of May 1976, the learned Rent Controller at Karachi passed an ex parte order for her ejectment from the premises. Her appeal against it was dismissed as barred by 3 days in the absence of any application filed for the condonation of the delay by the learned Additional District Judge Karachi on the 9th of July, 1976. She then filed a second appeal from the order which too was dismissed by a learned Judge of the Sind High Court at Karachi who agreed with the lower appellate authority that her appeal before him had been rightly dismissed as time‑barred. In these circumstances the petitioner has filed this petition for special leave to appeal from the order passed by the learned Judge in Chambers. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The brief facts for the disposal of this petition are that the ejectment order was passed by the Rent Controller on the 31st of May 1976. But the petitioner did not apply for the certified copy of the order until on the 30th of June 1976, on the last day of the period of limitation provided for the appeal under section 15 (4) of the' Ordinance. The certified copy of the order was made ready on the 2nd of July, 1976 but its delivery was not taken by her until on the 7th of July, 1976. The first appeal against the ejectment order was filed by the petitioner before the lower appellate authority on the 9th of July 1976. In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge, Karachi was of the opinion that after allowing the requisite time spent m obtaining the copy from the 30th of June 1976 to the 2nd of July 1976 under section 12 of the Limitation Act, the appeal before him was barred by three days. The petitioner failed to offer any explanation and move any application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of the delay. The learned Additional District Judge therefore, dismissed in limine the appeal of the petitioner before him. However, in second appeal against the order the learned Judge in Chambers was of the opinion that even if the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy of the ejectment order was computed from the 30th of June 1976 to the date of its delivery on the 7th of July 1976, the first appeal as filed by the petitioner on the 9th of July 1976 was barred by one day and that there was no explanation for the condonation of the delay. This order passed by the learned Judge in Chambers is unexceptionable and the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any error in the computation of the period made by the High Court in filing of the appeal before the lower appellate authority. The Court was therefore, justified in holding that the appeal of the petitioner before the lower appellate authority had been rightly dismissed as time barred. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere. This petition has no force and is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice we allow three months time from today to the petitioner to vacate the premises subject to the condition that she shall continue to pay the fat are monthly rent before the 15th of eath succeeding calendar month during this period. Petition dismissed.