1986 PLP 870 (MLD)

This constitutional petition is directed against order, dated 8‑3‑1982 of the learned District Judge, Faisalabad whereby he dismissed petitioner's appeal and maintained order, dated 4‑10‑1981 of the learned Rent Controller, Faisalabad directing petitioner's. ejectment from the shop in dispute.

2. Muhammad Saeed respondent herein, sought ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in dispute on the ground that he committed default in paying rent of the disputed shop since June, 1977 and also that the same was required in good faith for his own use. The petitioner resisted the application and‑ pleaded that he was tenant under Mst. Mukhtaran Begum, mother of the respondent and denied existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The learned Rent Controller framed following issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties:‑ (1) Whether the relationship‑of landlord and tenant exists between the parties? (2) Relief. The evidence of the respondent was recorded on 25‑4‑1981 and the case was adjourned to 11‑6‑1981 for evidence of the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner on that date and consequently the learned Rent Controller proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and the case was adjourned to 19‑9‑1981, on which date, an application was filed for setting aside ex parts proceedings supported by affidavit of one Sabir Ali. The learned Rent Controller rejected the application holding that the application was not moved by the petitioner and Sabir Ali had no authority to file affidavit in support of the aforesaid application. The learned Rent Controller also considered the evidence on record led by the landlord and came to conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. As Muhammad Akbar petitioner had denied relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties he proceeded to pass order of petitioner's ejectment from the disputed shop. The aforesaid order was maintained in appeal. Hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner seeking setting aside ex parte order was rejected by the learned Rent Controller without framing any issue. It was also stated that the evidence on record did not prove that the petitioner was tenant under the contesting‑respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the contesting‑respondent on the other hand, pointed out that the application filed for setting aside ex parte order was neither signed by Muhammad Akbar petitioner nor by his counsel. It was filed by one Sabir Ali who was neither attorney of the petitioner nor had locus standi to file the affidavit: The application was, therefore, rightly rejected by the learned Rent Controller. He referred to evidence led by the landlord and stated that the relationship of landlord and tenant was proved. It was lastly stated that this writ petition was not competent because it was filed through Babu Khan who had no authority to file this petition in this Court.

5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and find that photostat copy of the special power‑of‑attorney allegedly executed by Muhammad Akbar petitioner in favour of Babu Khan never authorised the latter to institute this petition in this Court, as such; Babu Khan had no authority to file this petition. The application filed by Sabir Ali for setting aside the ex paste order was also of no legal effect because the same was neither signed by Babu Khan nor be learned counsel for the petitioner. The finding of the learned District Judge based on appraisal of evidence holding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties suffered from no legal infirmity.

6. In the result this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. M ' Y' H Petition dismissed.